The

f(iOOSNotes
for Fathers

on

fURIIIIIIN6 O'IiOlltE

«iOOS
Kids Deserve Dads Sharing

Containing all KiDDS Notes through

May 29,1994
KiDDSNotes Version:May29,1994 Page ii

~ KiDDS, May 1994

IGDDSNotes Version:May29,1994 Pageiii

9)edlcation

go.. tknzeA1 tDOnle/l/and~wIur ~

~Jronvtk~~if~

9O-rk~~cuut~~
wb ClUurI/'b to-mainLat/v a
sease:~ and
~wlzuvimnzusedUuCl/J'eO/if~

go..rkcldicat:ed~~to-~rk
~andtk~~~~~
JronvtMu-~

g"O-tk~iftk~· Uurk~thab~
tUi/i/lObjzao£'- to-~ wAabtk carrea»
~Aa&
KIDDSNotes Version: May 29, 1994 ' Pageiv
KIDDSNotes Version: May 29, 1994 . Pagev

DiscLAiMERS

·1. No COMMENT'iN Tkis ·OR ANy KiDDS NOTE is MEANT TO be used AS

LEGAL AdvicE. LEGAl AdvicE is oNLy AVAilAbLE fROM MEMbERS of TkE BAR.
2. TkE REspoNsibiLiTy fOR YOUR ACTiONS RESTS wirh YOURSElf. TkE
AUTkoR( s) of ANy KiDDS NOTE OffER COMMENTS fOR YOUR iNfoRMATioN,
ANd dECliNE ANy RESPONSibiliTY fOR ANy ACTiONS TAkEN by ANyONE ON TkE
basis of diE NOTES. Cluck OUT All AdviCE bEFORE USiNG ir,
J. No pERSONS USEd AS EXAMpLES iN Tkis OR ANy KiDDS NOTE is MEANT
TO be REPRESENTATivE of ANy PERSON, livisq OR dsad.
4. TkE AUTItOR( s) of Tkis OR ANy KiDDS NOTES do NOT iNTENd TO
AdVOCATE ACTiON iN vioLATioN of ANy LOCAL, STATE OR fEdERA.LLAw •.
CkECk TkE LEGALiTy of ANy ACTiON bEFORE STARTiNG ir,

COPYRIGHT: ANYONE iNTERESTEd iN copyisq All OR pAlin of Tkis .

iNfoRMATioN should CONTACT TItE AUTItOR(S).

KiDDS NOTES ARE AVAiLAblE fROM KiDDS, POST Office Box 1 ~1 J,

PLEASANTON, CA 94~66 ...01 ~1.
KiDDSNotes Version: May 29,1994 .. ' Page vi
KiDDSNotes Version: May 29, 1994 Page vii

Preface

This book is an outgrowth of a set of notes on various aspects of being a custodial

father. The ideas and philosophy set out here developed over a period of nine years since
the formation of a divorced fathers' group, called KiDDS, for Kids Deserve Dads Sharing,
in the Tri- Valley part of the San Francisco area. The group was conceived of as a means
of sharing information on the difficulties men have in court seeking custody and the brutal
financial conditions imposed on them after they have lost (or even gained) custody. Then,
as now, custody defaults and decisions were almost uniformly in favor of a wife. After a
.year or so, the areas of discussion in the group expanded a bit to include child-rearing
issues and other auxiliary problems that single fathers might have.
After years of providing much the same information to·a succession of fathers, it
appeared reasonable to codify some of advice that was available so that it could be given
wider distribution. This volume is the first collection of the KiDDS Notes which resulted
from that project.
Divorce is an unpleasant and undesirable situation, hard on both parents and
children. After talking to many divorcing fathers, it appeared that there was some pattern
to preparing for marriage so that divorce might be avoided or at least mitigated, and
KiDDS Notes were added to try and distill some guidelines for men at earlier stages of the
marriage cycle. Men should be a little wiser in picking a wife who would not be likely to
cause a divorce. Furthermore, some comments were made that related to the social
effects of divorce.
If there was one attribute that can be used to describe almost all men faced with an
impending divorce, it would have to be naivete. Nearly all of them are so trusting and
open when divorce starts that they are pulverized almost immediatelyby their wives and
the professionals they hire to do the divorce for them. It is unbelievably frustrating and
heart-wrenching to see victim after victim be lined up for the kill and to be able to do so
little about it. Counseling a man who dearly loves his children and who will have to see
them incompetently or poorly reared by an indifferent mother causes anger the first time or
the first ten times it is observed. After that, it brings just a sense of how terribly wrong the
current system of divorce is and how much men, children and our country are hurt by the
prejudice against fathers.
This book contains much protest, stemming from that anger and frustration. It is
hard to see how anyone who truly cares for children could permit it to continue.
Hopefully, publishing this book will serve to wake up enough people to the travesty oflaw
which goes on in divorce court so that the legislatures of our states are impelled to do
something about it.
KiDDSNotes version: May 29, ~994
,,
Page viii
KiDDSNotes Version: May 29,1994 . Page ix

Table of Contents.

Dedication .........................................••..................•................. iii

Disclaimers v
Preface vii
Table of Contents ....................•..........................................•..... ix
Introduction 1
Before the Marriage •.............................................................•....•...•••• 3.
Picking Your Goals ......................•.....•.....•.•.............•............... 5
Psychological Needs in Marriage 9
Fear of Starting Children 13
Short Marriage •..................... '.' 15
Women to Avoid :.: : 19
Doing the Marriage •..................•......................•................................ 23
Test Driving Your Relationship ..................•..•............................ 25
Alternative Marriage 29
Pre-nuptial Agreements 31
During the Marriage •....•....•.....••..............•.......................•................. 33
The Second Kind of Love ...................................•................•.... 35
The Seventy Percent Solution ...............•.............•..................... 37
Givinq Children Top Priority ., ~ 41
The Anti-Child Rut 43
Children Are Never Boring •........................................•.............. 47
Precautions for Divorce H'.~'.'.' 51
'.' •.•.•••..•••••.•.•.••.•••••••••••

Buying Property : .............•................................................... 53

Do Your Own Books 57
Personal Credit 61
Family Debts 63
Protecting Your Records 65
During Marriage Crisis ..••........•..•......................•.•.....•..•••••.••..•••.•......• 69
Salvaging Your' Marriage 71
Marital Counseling 75
Trial Separation 77
On the Popularity of Divorce 79
The Great American Divorce Profits Machine 81
The Next Generation 8'3
No Education is a Bad Education 85
Humane Divorce 89
Before Divorce •••..••..•...•.................................... _ 93
The Divorce Process 95
Separation Shock 99··
When to Run and When to Hide 103
KiDDSNotes Version: May 29, 1994
• •• •• J •••
'_ Page x

Beginning Divorce •••.••••••.••.••.••••.••.•• ~..•.•..••..•.•..••..............••.............. 107

Cooperative Parenting ~ :~~:~ .. :•.~..•. :;: .•.......................••......•. 109
Mediated Divorce ~ 115
Preemption in Filing · 119
Should You Seek Custody? 123
Searching For a Lawyer ................•...........................•............... 125
Why Lawyers Hate Kids 129
Where Do Judges Come From? 133
Jealous Judges 137
The Pro Per Option ..................••.......•......•..............•............•............ 141
Going Pro Per ......................................................•.................. 143
Learning the Law 149
Learning Legal Process ~ 153
Tips for Pro Per Fathers ; : 155
Doing Divorce ....•........................•.................................................... 159
Court Structural Bias 161
The Future of Fairness · 163
Why Women Must Have Custody 165
Unheard Arguments ~ 167
Relative Arguments ................................................•............ · 171
How to Complain Effectively 175
When to Call a Judge's Bluff ...•.....•.................... ~......•...•.......... 183
Reconciliation ~.......................•............. 187
Bad News During Divorce .••.•.•...•..•• -••••••....••••.••...........•..•.........••...•..•• 189
A Catalog of Crazy Ex-wives 191
Dirty Tricks ~"" II ••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••• I ••••• 195
Rotten Tricks 199
Abominable Tricks 203
Sleazy Tricks 205
Police Actions 209
Paying For It All 213
Divorce Welfare 215
Hard Time 217
Your Private Scholarship Fund - 221
The Pension Hatchet 223
The Art of Giving 227
House, House, House! 229
How to Lower Your Legal Costs 233
Do You Have to Pay Your Lawyer's Bills? 239
Doing Visitation 243
Weekend Dad ...........................................•.. , •••, .• , ...••••••••••••••••• 245
How to Squeeze Out More Visitation Time 247
He Doesn't Want to See You 253
Staying Close 257
KIDDSNotes Version: May 29,1994 Page xi

Little Spies I •••••••••••••••• 261

Reporting Abuse II I" ••••••••••••••• II •••••••••••• 265
Psychological Abusa- The Invisible Crime •.............•...•.•.•......•...•• 269
Preventing Child Sexual Abuse ...•...•.......•..............•..•....•••••.••..•. 273
Running Away 277
Resuming Visitation or Custody ; 281
Getting Custody .....................•...........•...............•••...•...................... 283
Evaluator Bias 285
Kids for Sale 287
Joint .or Sole? 289
Long-term Pressure 293
The Unicorn, the Mermaid, and the Better Parent 297
Protecting Your Custody .........................................••......•.•..•.....••..... 301
Defensive Moves ; 303
Legal Custody 309
Temptation ; 31'1
Collecting Child Support 313
Doing Custody ..................•.....•.....................•..........................••...... 315
Pampering the Victims 317
Blocking Visitation 319
Playing Mom and Dad 323
Their Mother's Image .........................•................................•.... 325
Maternal Grandparents : 329
Sitting With the Mothers .......•..........................................•....... 333
Good Example 335
Budgeting Time ........•.............................................................. 337
Child Care 341
The Role Model Job 345
Doing a Remarriage .....................•...............•.................................... 349
Another of the Same, Please!. 351
Protecting Your Children in Remarriage 355
Blended Families 359
Pre-nuptials for the Previously Married 363
Fathers' Rights Groups .................................................•................... 365
Join a Fathers' Rights Group!. 367
Proving Bias with Statistics 369
Shining a Spotlight on Bigots 371
Six Top Jobs for Fathers' Groups 375
Get Off the Floor and Start Punching 377
The Big Picture 381
An End to Social Prejudice 383
A History of Marital Property : 385
What Are Fathers' Rights? 387
Dumber Than Marxism 391
KiDDSNotes Version: May 29,1994 ..... Page xii:

Examples From Elsewhere ...........•............................................ 393

Fair Custody Laws ..........................................••....................... 397
Appendix A. Groups ......................................................................•... 401
Fathers' Rights Groups ...............................•............................. 401
General Groups ............................................................•.......... 402
Appendix B. Listing 403
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 1

Introduction
This collection ofKiDDS Notes is not designed to be read cover-to-cover like a
book. Instead, it is organized to serve as a resource to fathers in different stages of their
marriage and divorce:
• Before a relationship gets serious
• Getting ready to get married
• In a marriage time with no problems
• When some indications of divorce come and precautions are necessary
• When a crisis arises in the marriage
• When divorce seems imminent
• Around the time one spouse files divorce papers on the other
• In the midst of court proceedings
• When visitation has been awarded
• In a battle for custody
• After winning custody
• When a father's custody is threatened
• When remarrying after divorce
For each of these periods, there are one or more sections ofKiDDS Notes, each with
three or more sections. As noted elsewhere, the purpose of these Notes is not to provide
legal advice, but instead to provide a list of options to fathers that they might not have
evaluated before. They also provide a different perspective on the divorce process, from
the point of view of the collected opinions and experiences offathers who have gone
through it. This contrasts sharply with the usual naive viewpoint of a father entering
. divorce with little contact with-the process. -
Actually, many men go through the divorce process in a depressed or distracted
state. They and their children wind up suffering more hardship that they would have, had
they been aware and active during it. Hopefully, reading the Notes may serve as a wake-
up call that divorce. is very important, especially to children, and a man's full, vigorous
attention should be devoted to doing the best for them and for himself.
The organization of the Notes is given in the Table of Contents in the beginning of
the collection. There is also a listing of the Notes and a short description of their contents
in Appendix B, so that it should be possible for any father to quickly find the sections he
needs.
For men who have been through many of the stages of divorce, reading the
sections of The KiDDS Notes related to earlier stages may serve to clarify what happened
to them. They may appreciate the great role that financial matters play in all the decisions
made there. They may also realize that the decisions they were saddled with were not·
made from a neutral point of view, but may have been tainted by bias on the part of one or
more of the people involved. They may then want to do something about it. A section on
joining or organizing a fathers' rights group is included, as well as an Appendix on existing
groups to contact. The unpleasant and unfavorable results that often afflict men in divorce
are often best dealt with by a group that campaigns both for public attention and for
Page 2 Version Date: May 29. 1994 KiDDSNotes

legislative action. An individual has little chance of affecting society at large, even though
he may be the most prolific letter-writer in existence. Democracy is only responsive to
groups.
Divorce has become very popular in America, after centuries of being uncommon.
A short discussion of why that is occurs in the first Note of the section entitled "On the
Popularity of Divorce". The bad effects of the normal course of events of divorce are
treated in the following Note, which serves to review some frightening statistics about the
social problems affecting youth and their correlation with mother-headed families.
Another collection of notes related to the bad effects of our current style of divorce occurs
in the last section, "The Big Picture".
These notes were made largely but not entirely on the basis of fathers' experiences
in the state of California. However, contact with national men's groups indicates that
these experiences occur in other states with almost identical patterns. For example, the
section on "Bad News During Divorce" is based on a national collection of experiences. .
There may be state-based differences in the degree of financial exactions imposed on men,
but almost everywhere they have been increasing regularly. The exact percentage of
fathers who win custody disputes may differ slightly state-to-state, but in all of them the
possibilities of success are much smaller than they should be. The names for some of the
players involved in divorce court may be different in different states, but almost all states
follow the same painful pattern of trial, and are prone to the same biases and
shortsightedness. The problems are national, not Californian. No contact with fathers in
other countries has been made, and no claim that US problems are universal is made here.
KiDDS is in the process of continually updating these Notes, and welcomes letters
from divorced fathers or women in relationships with them who share their successes or
their suffering. Anyone desiring counseling questions to be answered should be careful to
read the pertinent sections carefully before asking for KiDDS help directly. Not all letters
can be answered, but an attempt will be made to do so for anyone desiring one.
Anyone who is able to suggest improvements, corrections, topics for additional
Notes, or matters relating to distribution of them will be greatly appreciated. Anyone who
can provide an experience that can be used to warn other men of new "Dirty Legal Tricks"
can rest assured that the information will be propagated as much as possible so that other
men can avoid them. Anyone who has figured out new ways to protect themselves and
their children from some of the horrors of divorce court should let us know immediately
so that other fathers can be made aware of them and can start using them.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,'1994 . Page 3·

Before the Ma.rria.ge

Page 4 . Version Date: May 29. 1994 KiDDSNotes
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 PageS

Picking Your. Goals

Before starting a relationship, a man should spend enough time thinking through
what he wants to wind up with, whether it be a marriage lasting forever, or just a short
relationship. His goals for children need to be defined and verified as well.

A couple of decades ago, there wasn't much question as to what someone's

principal goal was for a marriage. Virtually everyone wanted a partner who could form a
happy relationship for life and who would be a good parent. Things have changed a bit
since then. Many marriages break up in divorce now.
The increase in divorce rate is just one of the social changes that have happened
over the last few decades. Marriage isn't the same institution that it was before, and there
are many views on what it should be. For many people, it has become little more than a
form ofliving together. They see it as a two-way street rather than a permanent
institution. At the farthest end of the spectrum of people's opinions is the view that
marriage is a temporary living arrangement with sex thrown in. The fact that it is called a
marriage rather than two roommates is merely a question of the labels that the two people
choose to apply or even a solely financial consideration.
There is a lack of definition that goes along with the erosion of permanence. What
one person feels marriage is or should be may be very different from what another does.
Some still regard marriage as one of the major commitments of life, but for others,living
together may be a bigger commitment. To some people, having a child is a major life-time
responsibility and to others it is almost meaningless.
With all this uncertainty in the area of relationships, it is important that a man
contemplating a relationship think through what he wants from it. There are multiple
options. One is transitory marriage. In light of the changes in our society, is it reasonable
to get into a marriage with the expectation of keeping itgoing for a while, and then, ifit
becomes unpleasant, of getting out of it with the least hassle? Why not simply regard
marriage as transient, and make the entry and exit as trouble-free as possible? It is
possible to have an easy divorce, if one plans for it.
Another possibility is to completely ignore the marriage option. More children are
born to unmarried mothers now than ever before, and there seems to be a continuation of
that trend into the future. Much of this is by choice, where the mother simply decides to
have a baby and finds a person to conceive with. The father's side to this is isolation from
his children. The reverse choice of a man wanting to be a single parent is conceivable, but
not very practical without the intervening stage of a marriage.
With relationship and family goals as different as these coexisting in our society,
each man thinking about a relationship needs to be sure of what he wants before he begins
anything. It is possible to stumble unthinkingly through life, and indeed, sometimes
unplanned adventures in the marital world work out perfectly. But gambling is not the
best way to find happiness. Thinking and planning is. If you don't know what you want,
you may have to be satisfied with what you get.
Page 6 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
.. -: ~,' .

The first step for a man figuring out a desirable future is to consider what
possibilities he might want. Does he want a short-term relationship? Does he want a
marriage that lasts for ever? Is having children the important goal, or are they only
desirable if everything else works out? Does it have to be marriage first, then children? Is
he perfectly happy with having children and rearing them himself or abdicating them to
their mother's care? Even more arrangements are possible.
No book or advisor can pretend to dictate what goals another human being should
have. Each man must choose his own goals. Perhaps the best advice is on how to choose
goals that are sensible and realistic.
A reasonable goal is one that will remain fixed for a long enough time to be
realized. A spur of the moment impulse is likely to disappear just as suddenly. It is
necessary to take time to think through what is important, and to try to feel what goal
creates a strong attachment. Both emotion and logic need to be employed. Agoal that is
logical alone and that does not motivate emotionally is unlikely to be fulfilled, even though'
it is well planned. A goal that is inconsistent logically cannot be fulfilled, even if there is a
strong pull to do so.
The thinkingpart of good planning is easier to describe. It meshes capabilities and
goals. Goals can be high, but they need to have some reasonable chance of being fulfilled
or they are not goals at all. Unrealistic goals are fantasies. They may motivate for a while
but the holder of them will often find himself wasting his time and his life. That is why it is
important to start with capabilities.
Young people sometimes believe they are capable of anything. This is a
characteristic of youthful optimism. They chronically underestimate how much effort or
time is required to accomplish something. To them, anything is possible and it won't take
very long either. While optimism is an extremely desirable characteristic, it can lead to .
false expectations and the collapse of a goal. Someone else's advice is needed, someone
who is considerably more realistic and willing to be quite honest. A mentor; a parent, .a
close friend not overly burdened with tact, or a professional counselor might work. The
point is not to pick goals, but to discuss what goal might be possible to achieve.
Alternately, a mature person might just find some time to be alone in order to think things
through himself
One place to start thinking out goals is with the most elementary capability. Do
you know if you are incapable of maintaining a long term relationship? If so, you need to
make plans accordingly. Are you interested in and capable of being a good parent? Ifnot,
and you want to be a father, you need to find a wife to fill the parenting role completely,
i.e., someone who is motivated by that and who will not mind you abstaining from this
most important function.
Evaluating your parental inclinations is somewhat easier than evaluating your
ability to make a lifetime commitment. Two things are the absolute minimum for rearing,
as opposed to having, children. One is perseverance and the other is interest.
Perseverance is necessary because children are an eighteen year commitment, if not longer.
Perseverance is necessary because children are not like computers or cars. You cannot
simply fix them up once and have them run for a long time. Children take a lot of
attention.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 7

Interest is another essential. If you have never had much interaction with children,
you need to evaluate your ability to interact. Why haven't you? There are plenty of
opportunities to help children or interact with them .: When a relative brings children
around, do you ignore the adults in order to give attention to the children? If a colleague
begins to talk about his or her children, do you tune out? Possibly this is because you
have no experience with them, but it is also possible that children are simply not in your
deck of cards. You need to find out. If you have a strong negative reaction to the
presence of children, you either need to find a way to eliminate that reaction or plan on
being a non-involved father. The first is by far the most desirable and the second the most
common.
Once you have chosen your goals, then it is time to choose a partner, if that is part
of the plan to achieve your goals. Doing things the other way around invites trouble.
Finding someone and then trying to talk yourself into agreeing with what she wants to do
betrays your own dignity and may very well lead you to an early divorce. Figure yourself
out first and then get on with your life. .
Page 8 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDS Notes.
KiDDSNotes :Version Date: May 29, 1994

PsvcholoqicalNeeds in Marriage

One factor that determines if a potential marriage or relationship is likely to break

up is the psychological needs of the partners. Figuring out one's own and one's
partner's needs can help a man make a wise marriage decision.

One way to minimize the risk of divorce is to pick someone who is completely
compatible with you, rather than a love-object. Making the choice of partner as rational
as possible can possibly make a relationship better. It might also hurt it.
Why do people get married? People get married because they expect that one or
more of their needs or desires are going to be met in the relationship. This expectation is
.often not a conscious one, where someone tries to determine ifhis or her expected partner
is going to provide what he or she needs. It is usually subconscious, based on what they
have observed in their partner. Sometimes thereis no observation, only imagination.
Some of these needs are real, tangible, and physical. One person might expect his
partner to provide the economic basis for the marriage. Another might expect his partner
to have children to make up a family. A third person's expectations might involve sexual
relations; a fourth might expect help with rearing his children. These physical things
involve clearly observable evidence. While it might be possible for one person to delude
another about his or her income or health, it is much more likely that there will be signs
that show the actual situation. If these needs are important, they can form the first filter of
possible partners. ,
Other needs are intangible. They are psychological. Such a need appears as a gap
in the person's life that they expect the other partner to fill. These needs are much less
likely to be understood by the person who has them, and much more likely to be
misinterpreted by both of the people involved. Yet a mismatch on psychological needs
can be the basis for a future divorce.
A man, who is looking at' a possible relationship and trying to evaluate if it will
lead to a satisfying long-term relationship, needs to know ifhe or his potential partner has
psychological needs that will dominate the relationship, or if they are both simply looking
for a marriage that is a partnership, where each provides for some of the tangible needs of
the other.
For example, a woman might have grown up in a family that undermined her self-
respect. For example, she may have been constantly teased about her looks. In a
marriage she might be looking for relief from the insecurity this caused. A partner who
seems ready to alleviate those feelings makes her feel good inside, and, despite his other
flaws, may be considered marriage material by her. The means by which the lack of self
respect or self-esteem is remedied, perhaps constant praise, little gifts, or sexual attention,
can differ with the person involved.
Still deeper psychological needs come from the images that people carry inside
their head of important people in their childhood, typically one of their parents. They may
have had an unsatisfactory relationship with a parent, and they are looking for a mate who
will meet that need. They want someone who reminds them, subconsciously, of that
Page 10 Version Date: May'29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

parent, and who will act differently from the parent, i.e., in a more acceptable way. For
example, if a father was' silent and unapproachable, his child may seek silent people whom
he or she can manage to get to open up. Needs like these have been psychologically
analyzed, and a good description of them is in Harville Hendrix's book, Getting the Love
You Wanti. Hendrix's analysis is more directed toward couples who want to understand
each other better, but the underlying theory behind his method of counseling is just as
relevant to someone seeking a mate as to someone seeking to deepen their relationship
with a mate.
The psychological needs that someone carries around with them, that the person
expects and wants to have satisfied in a relationship, are sometimes easy to discern by
another person. They could be obvious to others, or at least to others who have the
intuition and awareness to look for them, and yet be unrecognized by the person who has
them. It is important for a man to take the time to determine what it is that his potential
mate seems to be looking for, what she is pleased by, and what demands she seems to
have. Knowing her parents adds some information and insight into these needs. Talking
with her about her childhood and youth experiences is a pleasant way to build up further
insight. Seeing what kind of friends she maintains is another.
Harder than making these observations of a partner is evaluating one's own
psychological needs. Yet it is important to understand them, because if they are not
understood, the partner who does understand them has a measure of power or control
over the one with the needs. To use an example, suppose a man has never been able to
make friends, being too insensitive to other people or caring too much about himself and
his own predilections to make time for others. He would naturally suffer from loneliness
and a sense of alienation from the rest of society. A woman who is gregarious, and who
has a coterie of friends who are willing to put up with the man because he is their friend's
partner, is more desirable to the man. She can relieve his feelings of self-doubt that come
from years of having no one who wants to maintain a friendship with him. Her friends fill
in the void in his life, provided that he is not too self-critical to appreciate that he is still
friendless and is just borrowing the companionship that she has. In a marriage
relationship, she has the power to withdraw this companionship by declining to keep
bringing her friends around to him and to bring back the loneliness he may have dreaded.
She has the power in the marriage, and it was given to her by the man who did not
understand his own needs.
Consider another example. A man may be insecure about his talents in some field
and crave appreciation. By providing this, with praise and compliments, she fills a need he
has, with little or no cost to her. The man may become dependent on her, as the praise he
needs may not be very available elsewhere. Again, this woman has power over the man
who has these needs. Thus, determining one's own psychological needs, if there are any,
is very important for any man thinking about a long-term relationship.
This type of dependency is not at all undesirable if it is bi-directional. If two
people provide for each other's needs, and these needs continue and do not lead to any
external problems, a long-term marriage of two very happy people may result. On the
other hand, if one of the people does not have such needs, but recognizes those of her

1 Hendrix, Harville, "Getting the Love You Want", Henry Holt & Co., New York, NY, 1988.
KiDDSNotes Version Date; May 29, 1994 Page 11

partner and provides the remedy consciously, she then can decide when and how toput··<-
pressure on her partner .. If the needs are deep-seated and very compelling to the man; the-
woman is then in a position to dictate terms in the relationship, once it gets past the initial
stages and the man gets used to feeling good only when she is around to support him.
Again, this can lead to a long-term relationship satisfying to both parties if the man
provides physical needs to his spouse and if she answers his psychological ones.
However, it may be unstable, as the man may outgrow his.earlier needs and no longer
need the woman; or she may grow more and more controlling so that the marriage
becomes intolerable for the man. How much better it would be for the man to have
understood what his needs were that she was supplying and to further understand how the
marriage might develop after a few years.
The opposite situation, where a man provides psychological needs to the woman,
and she returns tangible needs to him, may also be an unstable situation. The process of
continually dealing with someone else's needs may become tedious and hard to maintain -
this is one illustration of what 'is meant by people changing in the marriage. After the
courtship and honeymoon period, there may be a tapering off of the satisfaction that the
man is willing to provide. In the above example of a woman being insecure about her
appearance, the man who undertakes to marry her and fulfill these needs may find himself
not spontaneously doing so after a year or more of marriage. If so, his hope for a long-
term relationship may be less promising. How much better it would have been for him to
have understood what would have been required of him at the outset. A little more
understanding of human psychology might have let him make a more informed choice.
The fact that these psychological needs might be very important in ensuring the
stability of a relationship does not mean that they are easy to determine. Determining
someone else's needs is easier; it is possible to see what works and what doesn't in
affecting the mood of his partner. Being with that person for a time, months or years,
allows him to intuit the pattern or better to consciously realize what it is that he is doing
that makes his partner happy.
Having the ability to monitor oneself is much more difficult. Most people are not
particularly interesting in finding out what someone has to do in order for them to have
their psychological needs met; they rather concentrate on feeling good and on finding
someone capable of making them feel good. Yet someone who has time for introspection
and is willing to put some time in on understanding himself should be able to find out any
psychological needs that are particularly critical to his happiness. If he goes from a blue
mood to being joyful, he needs to take a step back from the process and just ask himself
what happened to change him around. With enough examples, the need should stand out.
If his moods doesn't change very much, or they only occur because of some
external event, like getting a raise, he can conclude that he doesn't have one of these
psychological needs and that he is not in any particular danger of having a manipulative
partner who could influence him through it. If he discovers one, he has to decide whether
he wants to continue moving toward a marriage or whether he wants to take some time
and deal with that need, perhaps reducing its importance in his psyche. Self-knowledge
.alone may do that, and realizing the existence of such a need is a major first step.
If a man does not have one of these needs, and his prospective partner does, he has
to ask himself if he wants to go on and form a long-term relationship with that as one of
Page 12 . VerSion Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

the ties that bind him with his partner» Can he resist the tendency in years to come to use .
that knowledge to control the relationship? Or is control of the relationship something he
desires?
For every person in the world who thinks he or she is smart, there is somebody
smarter. A person who is looking for a partner with a psychological need, so that he can
use it to control his partner, thereby giving him more power in the relationship than his
partner, may run up against a person who can simulate such a need. A woman who,
during the courtship period, pretends that she needs to be complimented on her
appearance in order to feel comfortable, is providing false clues to her prospective mate
that she has a psychological need and that he could control her with it if he marries her.
Once in the marriage, she has the option of continuing the pretense, or using it to
manipulate the man, perhaps by insisting that he compliment her with more and more
expensive gifts. If the man had a strong need for control, he might find he is the one being
manipulated after be has gone through a bundle of money. People who play games like
these may simply deserve each other. A person who wants to find someone with whom he
can form a long-term relationship and have a happy family life may be completely
outclassed by a potential partner who is sophisticated in these regards -- false impressions
and misleading habits -- he might want to completely back out of such a relationship as
soon as he detects some clues as to what. is going on. A partner who is false at the
beginning is only likely to get worse.
In short, some understanding of oneself and of a potential partner, especially of
psychological needs, might be very useful in deciding if it would be possible to have a
long-term relationship with that person. Since American education does not typically
mention the subject, it would be useful for each man who wants to be a good father in a
dual parent family to figure this out for himself before he makes any vows other than New
Year's resolutions.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 13

Fear of Starting Children, -,

Two sources of fear of starting a family come from rational worries about the
possibility of divorce and the ensuing unhappiness and irrational ones stemming from
bad childhood experiences. Preparation cures one; therapy the other.

With all the bad things that can happen to fathers in a divorce or a relationship
breakup, it may seem bad judgment to start a family at all. In some cases it is. Those
relationships or marriages where a very poor choice of partner has been made deserve to
be terminated immediately or as soon as a substitute partner can be found. Marriages that
.are too bad to have children in have no reason for being endured.
, "It might-also be considered bad judgment to get a job. In a job, personality clashes
can develop, people can get fired, workloads can get overwhelming, accidents can happen,
people can lie about each other, bosses can be arbitrary, insulting and ungrateful,
management can be insensitive, dominating and miserly, the entire set of people involved
can be bigoted to the extreme, reputations can be damaged, vendettas can develop, and
that's only the beginning, for the situation in which there is no legal crime involved.
Should we all conclude that it is better to stay home in bed and put in for welfare?
Everything worth doing has risks. The purpose of this writing is not to warn men
away from the most important and rewarding task a human can do, having and rearing
children, but to help prepare men to do it well, and to get through one of the roughest
situations than can arise, family breakup, as well as possible. With the proper choice of
partner, and the proper treatment of the family, life can be simply beautiful. Being a father
taps strong, deeply internal feelings that can not be duplicated by anything from any other
aspect of life.
A lifetime of jetting around the world from resort to resort cannot make up for
never seeing a son or daughter born, never seeing them learn to walk and talk, never
watch them develop ability after ability, never realizing you are the most important person
in the world to someone else, never feeling that you have fulfilled life's and nature's main
goal. Rearing a child is a thousand experiences that are irreplaceable and unique. What is
more, the experience of being a father is one that thousands of years of evolution have
prepared us to do, to appreciate, and to enjoy. To abandon this because of fear of divorce
or anything else would be absurd.
The proper response to the difficulty caused by the possibility of family breakup is
to work to avoid it and to prepare for it. There are many, many preparations that are
possible, from being careful in picking a partner to preparing credit resources for any court
battles. With adequate guidance, a good shot at a satisfactory life is more than possible.
There are certain people who may have a fear of being a parent that does not come
from logically contemplating what might go wrong. One group of these are grown
children of divorce. A child who has seen a divorce, and has watched his parents split up,
and perhaps become acrimonious, have 'financial difficulties, or endure other wretched
experiences, may resolve never to go through such an experience as an adult, or never to
put another child through it, To avoid having to endure divorce as an adult the same way
Page 14 Version Date: May 29, 1994., KinDS Notes v

that he (or she) saw it as a child, he simply avoids having children. Perhaps he also avoids
relationships, except clearly transitory ones.· .• ' . ..~
A person's collection of bad childhood experiences could be even worse ifhis
custodial parent remarried or had a relationship that repeated the previous experience of
divorce. Even the remarriage of a visitation parent, followed by another tempestuous
divorce, might be enough to put the lid on any plans that the child might have for having
his own family.
Children in divorced families, suffering from financial problems, perhaps moving
frequently, might not have the opportunity to have close friends within successful
marriages so that they never spend any time inside a home where the relationship works,
where the children are loved and cherished by both parents, where the atmosphere is calm
instead of being a hurricane of hatred or even violence. How could a child who has never
experienced what a really happy family can be like realize what is possible or hope to have
one himself? He does not even know how to behave in one. Such a child from divorce, as
a young adult, may not have older friends who could provide such examples. With the
divorce rate about half that of the marriage rate, i.e., with half of all marriages breaking
up, it might be hard to find some examples of what he might hope to achieve. One form
.of self-therapy might be to actually go out among acquaintances and find some families
who have gone ten or twenty years successfully and who enjoy their children to the fullest.
A second group of people who fear marriage and parenting are children who grew
up in a psychologically or physically abusive household. They often have such negative
views of themselves or of possible futures that they cannot conceive of finding anyone
who wouldn't hurt them in the marriage or relationship. Subconsciously they are invalids
of their abuse. Without any hope for the future, any situation is fearful or doomed to
failure. If it is not fear that holds them back, it is pervasive pessimism.
In order to feel that he has some hope for a happy and decent life, a person has to
have some good experiences to recall and use 'as examples. If the abusive situation was so
severe as to dwarf all the positive experiences, then therapy is called for, not just to enable
the victim to have a relationship, but in order for him to have any kind of normal
experiences. Milder forms of abuse, for example, frequent criticism untempered by any
praise, leaves a person with so little self-esteem that trying to form a relationship is simply
too challenging. Sometimes time alone can cure such problems, provided that early
adulthood has a series of positive experiences that can be built up and that can then serve
as a counterweight to the negative ones of childhood. Otherwise a long counseling period
may be required. Anyone with feelings that marriage is psychologically impossible for
them should seek remedial therapeutic help as soon as possible, so as to reduce the loss of
. potentially wonderful experiences.
The first set of fears can mask those arising from the second set. A person who
grew up in a self-esteem-destroying environment may seize upon the potential problems of
divorce to explain to himself and others why he is unwilling to commit to any long-term
relationship. The only cure for such a person may be a long and intense psychotherapy.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 15

Short Marriage

So many marriages end after a few years that it might make sense to plan on
having a short one if it meets your goals for a relationship. Figuring out if it does has
to take into account both money and options for children.

Doing a marriage, in either the alternative or the state-controlled form, is a gamble.

You gamble that the goals that you have for the.marriage, such as permanent, friendly
companionship, a partnership to have and rear children, a financial improvement, or
something else, are more likely to be achieved with this partner than with any other one
you might find. You gamble that the marriage will lead to your satisfaction, and that if a
breakup occurs, the trauma that it causes will not be so great as to overwhelm the benefits
of the time you were married.
Many marriages in America turn out to be short marriages. Few people seem to
consciously plan to have a short marriage, but it often turns out that after a year, two, or
five, one of the partners realizes that their needs or goals are not being met, and opts out.
Does it make sense to contemplate planning on having a short marriage? Are your goals
satisfiable by a short marriage, or a succession of them? If so, you can consider marrying
someone who is not likely to be able to have a stable, long-term relationship. Two
considerations arise. One is money. The other is children.
Converting a relationship, whether an engagement or a living together
arrangement, into a marriage, doesn't happen without a reason. In former times, sex was a
reason. For some people, sex outside of marriage is still taboo, and, for them, sex is still a
reason to do a marriage. Because our society has health problems connected with sex,
specifically AIDS and venereal diseases, monogamy is a health benefit. If changing a
relationship into a marriage promotes monogamy, then health or the feeling of safety may
be a reason for it. Both of these are unaffected by the length of the marriage, so planning
a short marriage would work just as well.
Doing a marriage may mean that one partner has access to the money, either
income or savings, of the other. Alternative marriage contracts can specify that this does
not happen, or that access is limited; state marriages have financial access built into them
for income of certain types unless this is changed with a pre-nuptial agreement. Unless the
partners are financial equals, such access is a benefit to the one with lesser income and
.assets. It is a liability to the other one.
Why would someone sign part of their income away? Pure and simple generosity,
based on love, is a common explanation. In the past, the two reasons, sex and money,
were intertwined. Men were supposed to want sex more, and women to need money
more, leading to a traditional marriage in which the man supported the woman in return
for sexual access. Some people may still be imitating the old patterns without thinking
about them. Neither of these reasons are affected by planning for a short marriage instead
of a long one.
The other obvious part of marriage is children. No one disputes that it is easier for .
two people living together to rear children than for one person or for two persons living
Page.16 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

separately to do it. Perhaps the question is still open for more complicated situations, like
two couples sharing one child, but such living patterns are usually not contemplated in a
plan. The choice is a couple living together or living apart, with one or both doing the
reanng.
No one also disputes that it is not just easier, it is better for a child to be reared in a
happy, two-parent family. The debate is still open on the comparison between unhappy
couples staying together for the children's sake and the two single parent situation. Only
one set of data is readily available. Statistics have been collected on the school success of
children in single parent families and dual parent families. The dual parent children win
hands down.
What causes this? It may be that the wrong parent got the children. In a nation
which discriminates on the basis of gender in deciding custody, it would seem that the best
parent may often be denied the opportunity to rear the children. Said in reverse, the
children may be denied the opportunity to be reared by the parent best suited to· do it. '.
Until discrimination, both the social discrimination that makes men less likely to apply for
custody, and the judicial system discrimination, that denies custody to men who do apply,
is eliminated, we can not know how successful single parenting can be. There have been
no studies that have been able to examine the effect of sex discrimination in custody on
children.
Furthermore, we live in a nation that has built a system of divorce designed to
impoverish the industrious and reward the indolent, that extracts large amounts of savings
from the fissioning family, and that exacerbates the tendency to hostility between the
former partners. Children in single parent families have often had to go through this legal
gauntlet. Any comparison of their successes and the successes of children not forced to
endure our legal system cannotbe made. Ifalternative marriage becomes popular enough
to be statistical, or if enough couples having children just forego marriage altogether, we
may see a major improvement inthe lives·of the children involved, just because less _. _._.-.
children will be victims of the divorce process.
In short, although a marriage that lasts long enough to rear children may produce
more successful children than the average single parent family, there is no way to conclude
that an intelligent parent who plans for a short marriage can not rear children to be just as
successful as the average two parent couple. The only result that is sure is that it will be
more work.
This means that getting into a marriage with a plan to keep it short, having children
and planning to rear them oneself, is not necessarily a bad idea from the children's point of
view, provided that the parent involved is willing to make the sacrifices, in career and in
other opportunities, necessary to rear the children well. Getting into a marriage with a
partner who is likely to not be able to sustain the marriage very long is definitely a gamble,
but not one with devastating consequences. If divorce were easy and inexpensive, and
virtually put you back in the condition you were in before you got married, and you were
quite content to rear any children involved by yourself or with a new partner, would you
see any value in trying to find someone for a permanent relationship? This type of
thinking is not something that is commonly discussed.
There is one show-stopper. As long as divorce is the torture that we have made it
into, planning on a short marriage is not likely to become common. But if more and more
KiDDSNotes Page 17

couples escape the clutches of the divorce mafia and their mania for combat for money,
short marriage may become a very viable alternative.
At this time, a man can not protect himself well enough from this mafia to make
contemplating short marriage an alternative to trying to find a long-term partner. He
should be well aware that, even ifhe protects himself with a well-written marriage
contract, the courts will not leave him alone with respect to allowing him to have custody
of his children. This means that he has to take a preventive approach. If he chooses a
partner who is not likely to want to compete with him for custody, then there will be no
contest in divorce court except if his ex chooses to use her ability to get custody via
prejudice and use it to obtain a better financial arrangement for herself.
Preventing the "children for money" ploy is not easy. There is no legal way to
avoid such a conflict if the mother desires it. It is not possible to write an alternative
marriage contract or a prenuptial agreement that relates to custody. The state arrogates
that power to itself and, if asked to by one of the parents, nullifies any such custody
arrangements. Neither is it possible to cleverly overcome the state's power in this regard.
For example, a contract that specifies that neither party will seek child support from the
other may be nullified. A contract that specifies that anyone receiving child support will
pay it back may also be nullified. Any contract clause that works to defeat the state's
power to intervene in areas of custody and child support can be set aside. This means that
the parents cannot bind themselves in advance as to who will get custody. They can agree
who gets custody at the time of the divorce or breakup, but if they don't agree, prior
agreements, written and signed and notarized and anything else, will not dictate the
custody arrangements. The court will.
This means that the only way a man can prevent his ex-partner from using the
court's prejudices to her advantage financially is to make an intelligent choice of partner.
It is not enough to pick a partner who is not likely to want to be a custodial parent.
Someone who has no reason to need the money, or who has demonstrated that she has
enough character to live up to agreements that cost her money, is the only safe choice.
Someone who does not have hostility as a typical emotion is necessary as well, as a
breakup can lead to emotions that can override any agreements. Hate beats logic, honor
and trust all the time.
Page 18 Version Date: May 29.1994 KIDDSNotes
l"·;. ~; : -:, .".. " .'-. :.''j :"'i "1',: .•.•
}
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 19 .

Women to Avoid

Women who are likely to cause a divorce to become a long-drawn out disaster of
epic proportions are sometimes identifiable. These, and women whose goal is to be a
burden on a man, should be avoided.

In picking a prospective wife, you should know that there may be very many
women who are incompatible with you to a larger or smaller degree based on how your
needs and your willingness to meet their needs differ, and you should never contemplate
long-term marriage with one of them. This is an important filter on potential partners.
You should also. know that some women are simply walking dynamite, and will
lead any marriage into destruction and despair, followed by a divorce that is a hell-raiser.
You also need to contemplate that some women will be a burden for life, as they regard
self-sufficiency as something for others, not themselves. Both these situations,
interminable divorce actions and a lifetime of dependency, need to be avoided at all costs
as they impose a tremendous burden on any man. They are enough to ruin a major
portion, years or decades, of your life. This section discusses how to detect such women
well in advance of any commitment.
What characteristics in a partner make a divorce particularly. difficult? There are at
least four. Two of them relate to personality characteristics and two to psychological
characteristics. They are often combined.
At the top of the list is a love of conflict. Some people have grown up feeling that
battling another person is fun, and even that it is the most interesting part of life. They are
junkies for the stimulation of argument and-eonflict. -Perhaps they grew up in a household-
that was nothing more than a battle zone for the parents, and this was the only paradigm
for a couple that the person had. Perhaps they grew up in a family where sibling rivalry
took on a particularly serious and desperate tone. Perhaps both occurred. In any case, a
person like this has certain personality characteristics that are recognizable. The first is
that they regard compromise as the same as defeat. Another way to say this is that they
feel that conflict is desirable and should not be terminated unless the other side totally
gives up. In extreme cases, this means that defeating the other side is the only result of
importance and that the state of her own life at the end is secondary. She feels it is better
to wipe out the other side, even if it means that she suffers much more than necessary to
do it. There is even no such thing as winning, as if such a person succeeds in gaining on
one point, it is simply a time to transition to battling on another point. Surrendering
something to such a person does not buy an end to the conflict, it only increases the
person's desires to have more conflict. Only the terms of the battle will change.
A second characteristic is a focus on self If a woman puts her own goals and
interests paramount in life, or, to better state it, regards the interests and well-being of
others as irrelevant, when it comes to divorce, her children's interests may be totally
ignored in her drive to win at divorce. She feels that anything can be done to them
psychologically, emotionally or financially in order for her to come out on top. Such a
person cannot identify with any other person, and no matter how horrible the situation
Page 20, Version Date: May 29.1994

becomes for you or the children, she feels no sympathy. It is an unknown emotion. For
her, the only thing that she feels is her own emotionalstate-andif she ishappy, whatever
it took to achieve this is completely fine and completely acceptable.
A third characteristic that points to an interminable divorce battle is irrationality. If
a woman is not particularly capable of figuring out if something is to her own advantage, .
she may be likely to see any decision as adverse to herself, even though it may be a quite
reasonable compromise. She may have a sense of justice that is absolute and unforgiving.
Any decision that does not give everything to her is a corrupt and unfair one. Typical
multipoint decisions, where one side gets some of the things they asked for and the other
side gets some of the things they asked for and neither gets everything they wanted, are
not seen as compromises but partial errors. She takes what she gets and starts working to
get the rest, because, deep inside, it was all supposed to be hers and she deserves it.
A fourth characteristic is paranoia. Some women feel that everything that happens
around them, happens to them: Anything that you -do-will be. regarded as an attack on
them. The most preposterous motives can be imputed to even selfless gestures. Any
action that she does not see as being an attack on herself can be seen as having some trick
to it that is not now visible. In other words, she is aware that whatever you do is an
attack on her, and whether or not she can come up with an understanding of what it is you
are up to doesn't matter. It will all become clear later, but for now she just needs to
remember that if you do it, it is against her.
How can you determine which of these characteristics are present in a woman that
you meet and might consider for a long-term relationship, marriage or children? During
the meeting period, people do not act according to their normal mode of behavior, but
according to an alternate mode, in which they suppress anything that might be offensive.
They act toward the object of their affection with special consideration. Of course this
doesn't last, but what it does do is mask the true characteristics of the person that you are
seeing. You need to evaluate her by finding out how she regards and acts towards others.
Have you ever noticed true sympathy or consideration for others? Good sign, but make
sure it's not a fake. Can she figure out how to deal with other people successfully, or is
everyone a potential adversary? Bad sign; time to check out. Is she competent at
something? Good sign if it has lasted a long time, as most activities require someone to be
reasonable. How does she react when a problem arises, say with a serviceman or a
repairman? Is the person involved described as a cheat and a liar? Or is the problem
spoken of as a misunderstanding? How does she describe her parents? Does she hate one
or both? You need to evaluate why. Perhaps one of the parents was a terror. Remember
that parental behavior is deeply implanted in a child's mind, and can serve as a mode of
behavior in extreme situations, such as divorce might become. Would you want to go
through a divorce against the worse one of her two parents? Perhaps the parent
mentioned is not nearly what you heard of, but instead the problem comes from the
irrationality or paranoia of the woman you are learning about. Either way, no way. Find
someone else.
The point of this is that all during the time you are seeing the person, you need to
be evaluating her for the characteristics that are fatal to your life. Does she always talk
about her goals, and pay lip service to yours or those of her friends? Beware. Do you
detect a strange sort of enjoyment when she talks about her success in attacking a
KIDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 21

competitor? In a divorce, you become the competitor. You must keep your mind open
about abandoning the relationship, despite how attractive she may be otherwise. No other
characteristics can compensate for these combative instincts in the long run. Make no
mistake; let someone else go through the agony of a relationship with someone with one
or more of the above characteristics as an important component of her personality.
The second problem that you want to avoid is having someone be a burden on you
for your whole life or for a major portion of it. Unfortunately, the state courts of the
United States regard this as a desirable outcome. If you marry someone who is primarily
interested in being supported for life, you can expect to have to do so if the marriage is at
all substantial in length. Obviously men are not often tagged with permanent spousal
support if they marry only for a year. However, when the marriage gets up to a few or ten
years, you can count on being the source of her finances for ever. One solution is to
marry only for a short time. The other solution is not to marry a burden.
This type of personality is not hard to discern. A woman who takes no pride in
being self-sufficient, who does not strive to gain some career capability, who seems
content to work in a holding pattern job while looking for a mate, is clearly of this ilk. If
you want to be able to maintain a relationship for ever and are seeking a mate who is
dependent, both personally and financially, you might regard this as acceptable or
desirable. However, in this situation, you need to be able to evaluate your chances of
maintaining this relationship with great confidence, as the downside is very serious. A
mate who is financially dependent before marrying you can be expected to stay financially
dependent after divorce. In the worst case, she can find someone else to be personally
dependent on while you wind up paying the bills for both of them.
There are other types of women to avoid, but there seems to be a large number of
these two types around. Learning to recognize them immediately and drop them will save
you much grief in the long run. Finding a good.partner is difficult, and time wasted with
the wrong one simply makes the search harder and longer. Move on as soon as you make
a decision. There is little chance that basic personality types such as these will change or
evolve into something better during a marriage. Personality is largely set before childhood
ends. Having an illusion about this can be disastrous for you and extremely harmful to any
children you might have with such a person.
Page 22 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNoies
KiDDS Notes" Page 23

Doing the Ma.rria.ge

V~ionDate:May29> 1994 KiDDSNotes
KIDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page2S

Test Driving Your -Relationship _

Living together is a good way to verify that a relationship is stable. Before starting
it, considerations of safety and security, mutual goals, and financial agreements need
to be thought out.

There is no doubt that living together is becoming more and more of a standard
way for couples to see if they want to form a long-term relationship. It represents the
continuing transformation of relationships away from the traditional mode that-has been
around since the Middle Ages. Sex is no longer the prize that a woman gives a man in
return for his commitment to supporting her for life. Instead, we are getting about as
close to equality between the sexes as biology will allow. The technology of reliable
contraception has made this possible. Everybody knows this.
The same idea of living together is used by people who have no intention of
making any sort of long term commitment. It is simply a convenient and enjoyable way of
spending some time. Sometimes an unfortunate mismatch occurs, when one partner seeks
commitment and the other is not interested in it. It is certainly possible to spend a good
part of one's life living in such a misunderstanding.
For two people who are serious about making a commitment and starting a family,
living together may help to verify that they are able to live up to their aims with the other
person. America has made the choice to send its young people out into the world with
almost no education about important and crucial subjects such as human psychology and
relationships, and living together can be regarded as a way to learn this by trial and error.
There is such a large number of unhappy- -marriages, some-ending .in divorce and others - --
continuing on in error, that it is only natural to want to take advantage of any means at all
to avoid that outcome.
What considerations are important for a man considering entering a living together
situation? The most basic are safety and security. Allowing a woman into your house
when you are not familiar with her background is asking for trouble. There are nomads
who live by entering into such relationships and then disappearing in a few months with
cash, credit cards, a car, and any other movable assets. Emptying out your bank account
with forged bank slips is not unknown. One mode of operations is to have a boyfriend
somewhere who serves as a fence for stolen merchandise. He shows up with a van one
day while you are away and you come home to an empty house. A very empty house.
It is quite difficult to apprehend such a woman. Any addresses she gave you are
likely obsolete or phony. The police do not make minor thefts like this their top priority,
as there are many more serious crimes in America that have to be dealt with. It would
probably be a total loss for you. Even if the police were successful in locating your
runaway lover, proving that you did not give her the money or tell her she could use your
car, or whatever, is likely to be quite difficult and unsuccessful. You might get some
property back, but prosecution will probably not occur, unless the theft is blatant, such as
when your house is emptied out. The obvious solution is to not open your home to
strangers, no matter how unassuming they appear.
Page 26 ,KiDDS Notes

The second consideration are the stability and intentions of the person you are
considering living with: Some women simply trade sexfor.room'and board. Perhaps they
are students and don't want to have to work while going to school. Perhaps they have
tried working and don't like it. If you are looking for a permanent relationship, one
leading to a family, you may find yourself completely wasting your time, listening to delays
and stalls as months and months go by. The obvious solution is to put a time limit on such
a relationship, and be the one to terminate it. If you had received a good education in
Human Psychology, you would realize that people typically do not change. You might
also have learned how to recognize truthfulness and its absence. Lacking that, you will
have to substitute decisiveness for understanding.
A third consideration applies to men with good-incomes. You, need to be aware
that paternity laws in California and other states are under the same jurisdiction as divorce.
They fall into family court. All the terrors that you can read about relating to married men
'can hefcln you, except for spousal support and community property. All your live-in mend.
need do is get pregnant, and the state will assure her of 15%· or so of your income for the
next eighteen years. It is totally irrelevant that you tried to prevent pregnancy and were
duped or deceived. Child support is due to the child, not the deceiving mother. The
courts reason that the child can not have done anything to merit being refused support by
his father. You could sue the woman for deception, but the prospects appear daunting.
Even if you won, which might be as possible as yogic levitation, you would likely not be
able to get any money from someone who would pull such a trick. If you think you would
be able to hide your income and avoid paying support, you might want to read the section,
"Hard Time".
Of course, this is as much of a worry for non-living together situations, but the
opportunities for pregnancy are greater when you live with someone. This might be a nice
exit scenario for your partner when you start to terminate a relationship that you found
unsatisfactory. Instead of you 'breaking up the relationship on your own terms.you have
the choice of making it into a long-term relationship or visiting paternity court. The
obvious solution is not to relate to anyone to whom 15% of your income would be worth
taking by this method. Especially not someone who talks about being a voluntary single
mother.
Aside from these exotic situations, all preventable by common sense, what
considerations need to be thought through before embarking on a living together
relationship? It would certainly be desirable to know what it is you want from the
relationship, and what you are willing to settle for. ' Getting into such a relationship
reduces your opportunities to meet someone who is more suitable. This is the price of
commitment. You can still look around, but you may be constrained in time. You may
also be constrained in living up to any promises, implied or spoken, that you have made to
your partner. That is the second most important consideration. Did you agree to remain
faithful during the relationship? Did you get your partner's promise on this as well?
Faithfulness may be irrelevant to both of you from a logical or theoretical point of view,
but emotions do not always agree with logic and theory. ,Grief and misery can come in
unbidden.
The third consideration is your awareness of what your partner's goals and
expectations are? Has she thought out what she wants? Does it change from day to day?
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 27

Are her goals realistic? If they are incompatible with yours, you may think that they could
change. Back in the Human Psychology course you missed, you would have Ieamedthat
goals might stretch and bend, but they do not usually go away. If she does not want .
children and you do, don't waste much time trying to change her mind either in or out of a
living together arrangement. Leave her your business card or phone number in case she
changes her mind, and bug out. '
Some women, and even some men, do not have strong preferences on important
questions like having children. This does not necessarily mean indifference to the
question. It may mean a conflict exists within her mind. Perhaps she worries about her
ability to be a good mother or about the very real problem of juggling career and family
responsibilities. This means that her decision could go either way, depending on your
desires. Here a maybe is as good as a yes. Someone who worries about mothering ability
shows a very desirable attitude toward giving children the proper care and attention, as
opposedto sortie women who think of children as property to be managed or as
amusement for slow days. Someone who wants to do well atbotli mothering and career
might well respond to a potential father who will playa major role in child-rearing. She
may have experienced a father of the previous generation'sarchetype, one who earns the
money and leaves everything about the home and family to his wife. Since you are not like
that, she can form a better decision with you in the picture.
It is important to distinguish this situation from one where the woman does not
want children, does not see herself as a mother, and would not have children except for
your sake. In this case, the woman thinks that if making and keeping a relationship with
you means bearing children, she will do it. You need to decide if you want to be the
principal parent in a relationship where the children's mother remains largely uninvolved in
child-rearing, at least emotionally and perhaps physically. You need to think about the
effect on your potential children of a mother who didn't really want them. This
relationship is certainly a possible one, and it could certainly lead to a successful family,
but it will take more effort and time on your part than a child-sharing relationship. If you
love dealing with children, this might actually be a very desirable situation. You get all the
fun of being father without having to think about mother wanting to do something with
the children. You also get all the worries, without someone who is necessarily very
interested. Think about it. There are tradeoffs here that only you can make. You need to
understand yourself even more in this situation that in one where your potential partner is
oriented toward child activities.
Money matters, too. At some time in the relationship, you will have to decide who
pays for what and who does what work. Living with someone means that these decisions
get made immediately, although they can change at any time. This aspect of relationships
is often exaggerated in importance. It is easy to switch from having separate checkbooks
to a joint one, or to start doing half the dishes in return for not having to wash her car.
Exploring what works and what slows you down can be amusing. You will simply need
to monitor to see that your partner is capable of some flexibility. Given flexibility, these
problems can be worked out. If you need some help figuring out how to make these
arrangements, there are some self-help books that go through most of the possible
situations and areas and suggest ways to put your agreements in writing. These books,
typically written by lawyers, often have sample forms that you can copy or adapt to your
Page2S Version Date: May
, ..•
29,1994.
'. '.
-.,. .~ ,.
.
KiDDS Notes -

own situation. They serve as checklists for pointsyoumayhave forgotten. For example,
what do you want to have happen if one of you gets killed? Most states have laws that -
exclude unmarried partners, and you need to put something in writing to allow your
partner to inherit from you. Two comprehensive manuals are "The Spousal Equivalent _
Handbook" by Duff and Truitt- and "The Living Together Kit" by Ihara and Warner? .
These books also give lists, by state, oflaws that might affect your arrangements, such as
which states have common-law marriage (you're married if you act married laws) and laws
against cohabitation (largely unenforced).
There are some entanglements that you might want to avoid for several years into
a relationship, such as owning property jointly or starting a business together. Renting a
home jointly can be terminated reasonably simply at the end of the leese, but property and
businesses require some sort of negotiation. If the relationship terminates as badly as
some marriages do, achieving a negotiated solution might be difficult. The property might
have to be sold when one of you does not want it to. The business might haveto be sold
or dissolved, which could waste a certain amount of effort, money and creativity that you
might have put into it. At the very least, you need to set up conditions under which the
property or business will be sold or otherwise dealt with, and exactly how that will be
done.
Certainly it is not legally necessary to do this. Banks will grant mortgages and
loans without any such conditions being specified in advance. Other arrangements for a
business can be made as well. In this situation the partner with the most information on
what happens in the event of a breakup without conditions being specified will have a
better h~dle on the situation. You certainly want to be that partner.no matter what.
However, it is almost always better for the relationship to have talked and decided on
most eventualities.
One situation where that does not happen to be the best is where there is some
irrationality, perhaps arising from a strong self-doubt, in yourpartner+Having to-work on ----.- -
what happens in the event of the termination of a relationship may be simply too stressing
for her. It may raise memories of the past that are better left buried. Before you think
about barging into a full-blown discussion of how to terminate your relationship and who
will get what and who will pay what, you had better subtly and gently see what reaction
there might be. Relationships have been destroyed by demanding this.
Lastly, you have to have some resolve to watch where the relationship is going.
Sometimes, getting into a living together arrangement satisfies some deep psychological
needs that tend to eliminate the desire for any change. You need to review what your
plans and goals were periodically, to see if they have been abandoned because of some
effect of the new situation. Changing goals is certainly part of life, but do it rationally and
carefully, not by default.

2 Duff, Johnette and -George G. Truitt, "The Spousal Equivalent Handbook", Sunny Beach Publications,
Houston, TX, 1991.
3Ihara, Toni and Ralph Warner, "The Living Together Kit", 5th Ed., Nolo Press, Berkeley, CA, 1988.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 29

Alternative .Marriage

Alternative marriage; i.e., marriage by contract rather than by state license, avoids
many of the problems of divorce courts. This note describes how alternative marriage
can be the right choice for couples who are open and honest with each other.

The time to prepare for divorce is before marriage. .The way to prepare for
divorce is to not get married, at least not in the way that most people do. If you do get
married the usual way, with a state license and a state-approved official involved, you are
putting yourself, your potential family, your income, and everything else in your life in the
hands of some of the worst people to trust your life to.
Don't think. that you can avoid divorce by wishing it away. People change. You
will change and so will your spouse. Unexpected events happen. You cannot guarantee
that you will not become a victim of divorce. The only strong and robust defense you
have against being stripped of everything important to you is to avoid setting yourself up
for the tragedy of divorce court.
There is absolutely nothing the matter with making a commitment to another
person; in fact, it is a beautiful and loving thing to do. It shows a hope in the future and
an ability to trust another human being. If you are lucky enough to find the right partner,
by all means make the commitment. But watch how you do it. You do not want to also
commit to giving your life savings to a pack of wealthy lawyers who have as much interest
in you as hyenas do in their carrion. You do not want to have to parade your life before
. some half-educated, insensitive counselors who may simply use their position to further
their own prejudices. You do not-wanuo-haveto.stand.beforeajudgewho has·littletime·
to find out anything about you, does not want to have to do the job he is doing, is not at
all sensitive to the lives he is disrupting, and if you are unlucky, harbors unknowable
dislikes in his heart and uses you as a target for his rancor.
How much better it would be to decide, with the person you love and commit to,
how you will break apart your relationship if events should come to that. This is the
essence of alternative marriage, which is marriage outside the swamp of state law. In
alternative marriage, you make the decisions and no one profits from the unhappiness of a
divorce.
Alternative marriage is becoming more and more common, as couples of all ages
decide on a marriage coritract between themselves. Such contracts are not hard to
prepare. Samples exist in several books and a prospective couple can just pick one out or
write their own based on what they want to do. The marriage contract spells out how the
couple plans to live together and how they will divorce if they decide to. It talks about the
sharing of income and possessions, and the responsibilities of each. It can be modified at
any time if'both partners want to do so. There can even be a statement that some things
will automatically change if both members do not want to continue some part of the
arrangement and remake their contract each year. The renewal can be part of an
anniversary celebration, where the two spouses renew their commitment to each other.
The original signing of the marriage contract can be as private as the couple wishes, and
Page 30 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KIDDSNotes

they can have a church service if they are believers, or a self-written ceremony to be held
wherever they choose. Alternative marriage is an event to be proud of, even more so than
a state marriage.
One important concern in a marriage contract is the provision for children. The
alternative marriage contract should say if the couple wants children, and if they do, what
will happen to them in case of divorce. No mother or father can escape the state's clutches
with respect to their children, as even if an alternative marriage is made, the state still
reserves the right to order child support payments from one or both parents as well as
visitation and custody arrangements. Hopefully, parents who are thoughtful enough to
have prepared ahead and gone through with an alternative marriage would not want to
escape their contract agreements on support in case of separation and divorce, but if they
do, the state can step in. Spouses should know this, prepare for this, and certainly not let
such impediments interfere with their plans to have a family.
In some states, alternative marriage becomes a state-controlled marriage unless the
couple takes steps to prevent this from happening. This should be a provision in every
alternative marriage contract, as there is no certain way to predict what state a couple
might find themselves living in, given the mobility of Americans. This also may serve as
protection against a change in laws, although it is unlikely that they would be made
retroactive. It is more likely that a state would write new laws taking control of
unmarried couples, but so far none has, and courts that have tried to do it by themselves
have been overturned in appeal.
One last point needs to be made. If one of the spouses feels that they cannot
commit to a marriage contract, but instead wants to simply go through with a state-
controlled marriage, the other spouse should back away and seriously ask why. The
unsure spouse is clearly not ready for marriage, or in the worse case, wants to obtain an
advantage from the marriage without telling the other spouse exactly what it is he or she is
getting into. This is a sure sign to beware. Spouses who cannot -communicate and cannot-
be open with each other at the outset are not likely to remain committed very long. Better
to wait and see if the relationship grows better or if it fails. The worst result that can
happen is for a state marriage to take place; then both spouses must descend into the pit of
the state's divorce courts, and be hassled and harried by the denizens there. For your own
sake and the sake of your potential children, stay away from this at all costs. Better no
relationship at all than one that destroys your dignity and self-esteem, which isthe essence
of the human-grinding process of divorce court.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 31

Pre-nuptial "Agreements'

Writing a pre-nuptial agreement can solve some disputes in case of divorce, but
not others. Breaking the sharing of income rule is one of the most successful areas,
and child custody the absolutely least successful. It is still better to have a one.

If you are going to get married by your State or residence and play Russian
roulette with divorce courts, at least have the foresight to prepare for it. More and more
couples are signing pre-nuptial agreements. Formerly, previously married couples
remarrying would prepare these agreements to define the rights that the children of their
former marriages would have to their parent's estate and how they relate to spousal rights.
'Nowadays, couples marrying later, two-income couples, couples expecting to inherit .
substantial amounts from their parents, or couples who just want to have a more open and
well-understood relationship are signing them as well.
Ifwell-crafted, a pre-nuptial agreement serves as a barrier to the depredations of
divorce lawyers. It is not a contract in the sense that it cannot be violated, as in divorce
court, contractual law means very little. It serves as a barrier, but not a unbreachable one.
The more effort that is put into crafting a pre-nuptial agreement, the more effort that must
be expended in overturning it and the less likely that a spouse will make the effort to do it.
Keep this in mind when deciding whether to get a state marriage, as it provides some
indication of whatdivorce court is like. Divorce law is a framework upon which various
decisions made emotionally by evaluators and judges are strung.
The pre-nuptial agreement can serve one important role: it can set a standard for
the financial dealings within the family that can be used as a precedent for divorce
agreements. It cart overcome the presumption of joint or community property. It can
leave the ownership and control of the two spouses' incomes in their own hands.
When a pre-nuptial agreement goes beyond financial arrangements, it becomes
almost unenforceable. Pre-nuptial contracts could contain an agreement that neither party
would ask the other for spousal support in the event of a divorce. Courts have thrown
these agreements out, as the states' rules that spouses should be responsible for each other
take precedence. Agreements relating to children's custody are likewise not worth the
paper they are written on if one spouse changes her mind about them. The state takes the
position that it will decide what the best interests of the child are (meaning they want the
opportunity for the court officials' biases to be satisfied), and it will proceed to make
whatever rule it chooses.
On the other hand, custody agreements that a divorcing couple make for
themselves following their breakup are usually but not always followed by the divorce
court. A couple that does not agree in divorce court gives up its right to make decisions
for itself The court will pick some arrangement it likes, often that selected by the ex-wife
with some sops thrown to the ex-husband.
To summarize, pre-nuptial agreements work during marriage when they keep
control of a person's possessions and income in their own hands. The spouses can
maintain their own financial arrangements. When it comes time for divorce, the court can
Page 32 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

not undo this and say that some of the richer spouse's accumulated wealth must be given
to the less rich one. However, they can and usually do insist that the poorer spouse be
supported at some comfortable level, via the mechanism of spousal and child support
orders. If this means that the richer spouse has to use his accumulated wealth, then that is
what happens. The same pool can be tapped by the lawyers for their fees and expenses.
Pre-nuptial contracts are no substitute for an alternative marriage contract, which lifts the
state off the back of the parties to a greater degree. Alternative marriage eliminates
spousal support, leaving only child support. .
Pre-nuptial agreements, already weak, are further weakened by actions that a
spouse could take during marriage. Putting money in a communal account gives it away, .
or at least halt Purchasing possessions in joint name may simply give away half of them.
One spouse stating in front of witnesses that he intends to give something to the other is
as good as giving it away, even if there is no substantial intention of doing so.
Some areas of pre-nuptial agreements have not -yet been tested in the courts. For
example, there appears to be no indication as to whether the agreement that one spouse
will support the other during her or his education with no request for reimbursement may
not be recognized by the courts. It should also be remembered that divorce law changes
almost monthly. It is also possible that changes are made retroactively, although that is
less common. Changes in the law usually are in the direction of taking more money from
the richer spouse and giving it to the less rich. There is no telling what area may become
the next playground for the law-writing committees of our various states. However, pre-
nuptial agreements do provide some amount of protection, as opposed to marrying
without any formal agreements at all. In this case, you have no one to blame for a
financial life wrecked by divorce court rulings other than yourself, and of course, the
predators of the court.
KinDS Notes . Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 33

During the Ma.rria.ge

Page 34. Version Date: May
. .
29. . -:,,<.~;
1994 "_' . KiI?DS ~otes<{
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 3S

The Second Kind of Love

Lovin~ and cering for your child is the most important, most satisfyin~ and most
rewarding thing that any father can do. A new father needs to get ready to do his part
in rearing his child and he has to learn to reprioritize his time.

Before your first child is born, you should think about how you will treat it. There
is one thing that any father who wants to have good children should not do. He should
not leave the rearing of his children to his wife. A relationship or marriage is not meant to
be a strict division of labor, with the father concerning himself with events outside the
home, and the mother in charge of what goes on inside, including the children.
There are many reasons for this. For fathers who live for their own happiness, the
reason is that there is nothing else on earth that can provide as much happiness as one's
own children. Loving and caring for your children reaches some hidden closet of your
mind where good feelings are stored, yanks open the door, and lets them all spill out. For
fathers who live for others' happiness, the reason is that there is no greater opportunity to
help others than within your own family. Children need everything. When they are young,
they are incapable of anything. Older children need the training that is essential for them
to be successful as adults. That doesn't come from schools. It comes from the home.
For theoretically-minded fathers, children are the way that both our genes and our
habits are preserved for the future. Without children, everything an individual has and is
stops with death. With children, it goes on, maybe forever. For practically-minded
fathers, children are the next generation that will run our society. They need to be helped
to get ready for it. The quality of our future civilization depends on the quality of the next .
generation of citizens.
For fathers who are proud of their abilities, children are the most attentive
audience you can have. Their natural instincts make them want to learn, and their bonding
with you makes them want to learn what you know so they can use it as well. For fathers
who have low self-esteem, help your children be better than you. Let them know how you
feel about yourself. Probably you will see that you are much better in their eyes than in
your own. For fathers who like challenges, rearing children has plenty. Furthermore, your
children will challenge you as they grow older. Children seem to delight in struggling to
surpass their parents in one way or another. Give them a run for it. For fathers who have
fine taste, let your children learn to appreciate as you do.
All the interactions with one's own children are predicated on one essential: a good
relationship between father and child. That relationship needs to be built up from the time
that the child is born. The building blocks are the hours spent with the child and the
mortar is love.
Love of a child is not the same as love for a spouse. The ancient Greeks had
different words for these two types of love, and it is unfortunate that our language has lost
that distinction. Love for your child means caring about the child's present and future.
For the youngest children, it means be around to reassure. Later it means to train. The
time that you give a child should not be time that you regard as wasted, because you are
Page 36 Version Date: May 29. 1994 KiDDSNotes

not able to go have fun instead, or because you are not able to work some more hours.
There is nothing more satisfying and useful than rearing 'a child -- it should be both fun and
satisfying. .
If you find you are about to be a parent, and if you don't feel any emotions making
you happy in advance, wait. The actual presence of your child may be the trigger that you
have been waiting for. If you can be in the presence of your child and still feel no
happiness and no pride, then perhaps you need to work on your own attitude toward life.
What is it that you care about? If nothing comes to mind, you may be depressed.
Depression is caused by many things, from chemical imbalances to too much stress. Have
it diagnosed so you can fulfill your role as parent. If you care about money, or some form
of material possessions, or some activity, all to the exclusion of your children, then you
need to ask yourself what is so important about your money, possessions or activity that
makes it outweigh your children's demands.
. Some parents grew up in hotnes with poor parents, and never saw how to be a
good one. They need to struggle to learn, from friends, from books, or anywhere. This
should be the very first priority of parents, for there is no more important job than
parenting. America is a land of opportunity, and plenty of teachers have taken the
initiative and created adult courses on aspects of parenting. If you need help, you can
likely find it. Remember that there is no one else in the world who has the responsibility
that you do, to rear your child well. Live up to your obligation. .
KiDDSNotes Vemon Date: May 29,1994 Page 37

The .Seventy Percent .Solution

One emotion that destroys the happiness a marriage can bring is a feeling of
exploitation. These feelingS are usually unfounded, and there are some thinking
exercises that can be done to more carefully evaluate the balance of contributions.

Divorce is not fun. It is not a desirable outcome of a long-term relationship for

most people. It is something to avoid.
Feeling that you are being taken advantage of,.day after day, builds up resentment
that can poison other aspects of the relationship and lead to a fission. A man who feels
this way needs to be able to determine if he is actually being exploited and then decide
what to do about it.
Feeling exploited means that you think you are contributing more to the
relationship than your partner, and that the amount you contribute is substantially more,
not just slightly more. It means that your excess contribution continues for a long period
of time, and is not just temporary, for example when your partner is laid off and needs to
be supported while she finds another job.
There is a big difference between feeling exploited and being exploited. People's
beliefs that they are being exploited in a marriage are often simply myths, artifacts of how
we think and how we evaluate ourselves and our own talents. Since it can be a very
serious problem, it is worth analyzing where the feeling comes from and why it might be
misleading.
Perspective is the key to understanding. When we are figuring out what we have
contributed to the relationship, what sacrifices we have made, and how important they are,
we are looking through a magnifying glass. Work that a person himself does is completely
noticeable to that person; he had to go through it. If it was unpleasant or boring, that was
clear immediately. Ifit was long and fatiguing, or if it required special concentration or
special talents, that was clear as well. All of the attributes of the task are apparent to the
person who does it. But when we look at something that someone else does, we are
looking through a telescope. All the details are missing because of the distance. This is
especially true to someone who is not familiar with the work. Work appears simple or
easy because the drudgery is in the hidden details. Then, when a person compares the
work or sacrifices that he did or made, which all seem so close and large, with those his
partner did, known only through the result, it almost always appears to him that his own
contributions are larger than his partner's.
This is the basis for the myth of exploitation. An example might help illustrate it.
A man works hard every day, bringing home the total family income. His wife carries a
series of babies, giving birth and taking care of them. The man could think of how easy it
is to stay home and just putter around the house with little children. He knows how he
enjoys being with the children on the weekend, and thinks a day full of it would be even
more enjoyable. Not being female, he has no idea of what pregnancy is all about, and feels
that it is just a normal physical process. He has a job that involves high stress and he
worries every day into the night about keeping up the pace and avoiding a layoff or
Page 38 yers~onDate: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

demotion. He faces commuter snarls every day and is often a wreck when he gets to the
office. He feels that his Contribution is based on sweat, and far exceeds that of his wife.
She has visited him for lunch several times and thinks about how nice it would be
to work in the beautiful environment he shares there, and .how she would glory in being
able to order around secretaries and subordinates. She remembers every day of the last
stages of her pregnancies and feels she has made the tremendous sacrifice of a potential
career as well as of all her free time to give their children a happy home. She feels taken
advantage of and resentful. Who's right?
Neither is. The two contributions are not measurable. There is simply no scientific
way developed yet to compare the physical drag of pregnancy with the rigors of stressful
employment. They are both hard, but there is no meter that measures the effort. Other
examples show the same result. Both partners cannot appreciate what the other does
because they haven't been there. This makes the relationship hard to manage ifboth are
used to trying to balance their contributions to any joint project and to be fair to each
other, as well as to avoid being used.
One way to solve this dilemma is to forget about measurement and take what each
can offer to the marriage. .Both partners can work on realizing that there is no way to say
who exploits whom in a relationship. Giving up the high evaluation of one's own effort
may be a cheap price to pay for having no more doubts about fairness or exploitation.
If this isn't possible and one partner still has real doubts about whether he is being
exploited, some more deep thinking is called for. Making even a subjective evaluation of
contributions is much harder than it seems. It can be done in many different, equally
plausible ways. Do you measure effort or results? In a relationship where both work, if
one Cpartner has a much more stressful job but brings home less money, who is doing
more? Is the person who brings home more money the biggest contributor, or is the
person who puts in the most effort? There are simply no rules and no patterns to follow in
making these comparisons. What ifboth effort and results seem to show an unbalance
toward one side, but the other partner is putting in more time? Giving up one's time to
contribute to the marriage might be even more oppressive than putting in a greater effort.
What about the quality ofthe time contributed? Spending time where little effort is
needed can be boring, even stultifying. It could be a much greater sacrifice than putting in
effort on a task that is enjoyable and stimulating -- especially if that job is something a
person would do anyway, inside or outside of the marriage. Perhaps boringness should be
considered as the major stress factor, andinterestingness a relief rather than simply
asserting that it makes a job harder and therefore that task should be weighed more
heavily in measuring who contributes the most.
Consider an example. A husband is a business leader and enjoys every minute of
his challenging and stressful job. He feels his contribution to the marriage is immense.
His wife stays at home with their disabled child, and has little to do during the day other
that to be available when the child is awake. Perhaps her contribution should be
considered much greater than the husband's, as it is not challenging, simply emotionally
draining. His contribution is fun to do; hers is painful. Whose is greater?
Quantitatively measuring contributions, even subjectively, has many tlaws, but it
can be tried. One way to estimate the relative value of the two contributions is to think of
how much of one partner's job the other partner would be willing to do, assuming it were
 . .
KiDDSNotes Page 39

possible to switch roles and talents .. This means thinking through what the other- partner
has done and giving her the benefit of the doubt as to how muchtrouble and strain it is.
Even then, because a person can not appreciate well what he has not done, he needs to be
generous in his assessment. This exercise should help in deciding how much more or less
worthwhile the partner's contribution is. It needs to be done with an open mind, by
someone who is willing to find out that his "exploiting" partner is actually doing 50%
more of a contribution than he is.
After the assessment exercise, it is possible to see what fraction of the total
contribution each partner is doing. Then, on top of this, each partner should plan on
putting in 70% of the total. In this case, two times 70% equals 100% as the people who
are doing the measuring have exaggerated scales for their own contributions. Only if one
of the partners feels they are putting in far more than 70% in all three factors, time, effort
and results, even after giving every concession in assessment to the other side, it may be
time to think about changing the relationship. However, it would be better to think: first
about how good it is to be generous with your own Contributions than to think about how
to control your spouse and force her to contribute more. Marriages work because of
generosity and sacrifice, not because of careful contribution-balancing calculations. And a
working marriage may be well worth more than a 70% contribution.
If a partner has gone through this exercise, and still feels exploited, he may be
correct. The mode of bending over backward to avoid looking at the fair contribution
problem ignores the fact that, in some situations, one partner might be making much less
of a contribution to the relationship, measured on any basis at all, no matter how
generous. But before making any final assessment, a person feeling exploited needs to
talk about his partner's Contribution, so that they can both appreciate what is involved.
The point is not to talk about how to force a partner to contribute more, but to simply
listen to a discussion of what is already being contributed so that a more comprehensive
understanding can be had. Only when every source of information is tapped and taken
into account should a marriage partner think about terminating the relationship because he
. is being exploited. However, if a marriage has turned into a rip-off, everyone, not merely
the friends of the questioner, who is asked to review the situation agrees it is a rip-off, and
the exploiting partner has no counter to it and is not willing to make any changes, the
person being exploited has to make some tough decisions about what to do. If children
are involved, is getting out of an exploitative situation worth the grief and dislocation they
will have to suffer? All in all, it would seem that exploitation in a marriage is something
that only rarely should be considered grounds for terminating it. Situations of exploitation
do exist in marriages, and although it is hard to see how to decide if your own is one,
going through the thinking depicted above may be worth it only if the exploitation is both
determinable and correctable. This last consideration may be the one to end a partner's
concentration on exploitation.
An alternative is to work within the marriage to put an end to the exploitation.
Arguing with a spouse is usually a fruitless enterprise and can destroy the atmosphere of
the family completely. Playing games by reducing one's contribution can backfire and lead
to the exploiting person ditching the relationship. Perhaps she entered into the marriage
solely to live in leisure provided by the other spouse, and feels some attribute she brings to
the marriage or relationship merits her having this life of privilege. Taking it away from
Pag~40 Version
.
Date: May _;
..• 1;'-., •
29,1994,
.,',' ,

her may lead to a divorce suit, and any man getting readytoplay.the game, of'pressuring.i;
his spouse had better understand what 'his future might hold "after-a"divorce getssiart~a.:'::
j~

Being exploited by 'a spouse may be far superior to being exploited by the professionalsoL~
the divorce circus. Keep giving, keep living, and simply accept your life and makethe best'
of it could be the best course to follow. - ..
 ", ",,' . {

-KinDS Notes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 41

Giving
-.~,~
Children Top Priority'
.,

The consumer culture we are immersed in devalues children and parenting, much
. to the detriment of both. Young people especially need to be aware of the waste of
time and money on consumer fads that could have been better spent on their children. -

We live in an ad prison. All around us are advertisements for objects and services
we hardly need.- .Signs are everywhere in urban and suburban areas, urging us to come in
and buy something. Themail is mostly advertisements in one guise or another. The
broadcast media are so saturated by ads that a few more would eliminate anything else.
Newspapers squeeze stories and features in between the ads.
'. The effect of this incessant bombardment is that we become creatures of the ads.
Instead of thinking what to do with our time, effort and income, we have this mental
pressure generated by the ad culture, almost compelling us to follow them. We even get
co-opted to become ad proponents. We talk to each other in ads, speaking about how
much we liked this or that, or which brand of some item we prefer, or what we are going
to buy next. Substantial conversation has diminished and has been replaced by ad talk.
Instead of having a real purpose to our lives, as humans of all cultures have had for
centuries, we seem to have adopted a goal of consumption. Before ads swamped our
consciousness, we cared about our own capabilities, our character, and our families. But
these personal concerns have been reduced in visibility. Even children have been
compromised. Now they are thought of as consumer goods. "Should we have a child or
go on a vacation this year?" Comparisons that would never have been made in the past
are now thought of as reasonable and rationaL- .
But children are not like waterskis. They are not like products that you can go to
a store and buy. -You can't bring them back to the hospital or toss them in a closet when it
is time to go on to the next amusement. You shouldn't even contemplate such a
comparison. Children are the means that we ourselves, our accomplishments, and our
society continues itself They are the vehicle of the future. If we forget about the future
and only care about the present, we lose the distinction between ourselves and the rest of
the mammals. Humans plan for the future. Animals live in the present.
There is nothing more important in life than our children. A couple should be
thinking about how to make their lives well-arranged for having and rearing children, not
about whether children will interfere with their vacation plans. Children are too important
for such considerations. They need to be given top priority in every relationship. A man
who does not care for his children is nothing, a dead end in our society. No amount of
entertainment, amusement or experiences can erase that
If a person finds himself worrying more about what to buy next or what to watch
next or where to vacation next than about his family or his family-to-be, he needs to step
back and realize what being in the ad prison has done to him. Ads are psychological
warfare, designed to induce people to transfer their wealth to others. Many of them are
simply announcements of where something can be found for a certain price, and were they
not so ubiquitous, would be unobjectionable. But the really compelling ones, the really
 Page 42 JGDDS Notes
""
:.. .,;.
,. •.. ~••.-' : ;..•.j.~ .•

injurious ones, are those that tear our attention awayfrom the useful tasks of helping our
own families develop-and improves, 1;liey;9r4g~.op['·att~nii~l1~into a.myriadof ways of
foolishly spending time and substance: Young men arid womenare the most victimized, as
they have not had the time and experience to develop an immunity to the ad culture. They
are often like dry leaves in a wind, blown one way and another by gusts of advertisement.
Some ate completely uncertain about what to do with their lives, and this uncertainty is
exploited by the ad makers to induce them to essentially work for no return. They are sent
out by the ads to earn money and then to spend it on vapor, goods that have no lasting
value, that disappear leaving nothing to show for the work it took to earn them.
Why does this happen? People, for the most part, do not live lives governed by
logic or contemplation. They make their everyday decisions based on either what they
have already learned to do or on the basis of what they see. If they see an image in ads of
someone behaving as if they are happy, they may subconsciously decide they want to be
happy like that, and follow the pattern of behavior of that image .. It takes timee.rnuch time,
to realize the falseness of such images •. People also want others to appreciate them and to
give them attention. Society breaks up into small clusters that give their members
attention. Smokers talk to smokers about smoking and feel better about it. Skiers talk to
other skiers or would-be skiers about skiing and feel better about it. The basic mode is
elementary. People do something that they think others will admire, perhaps based on the
ads they have been buried in. The factthat the activity is nothing more than pointless
never intrudes on their consciousness.
If all this useless activity hurt no one, it might be excusable. But the time,
attention, effort and money used for foolishness could have been used to make the lives of
our next generation better. Once that effort is frittered away, it is gone forever. A person
who spends a large part of his life in non-consequential activity has less for the real task of
life, the rearing of children. No matter how large a group of self-congratulating time-
wasters is assembled for an amusement, the fact remains that it has no use.and.those.that.. __.
spend their time on it are wasting themselves.
The bottom line is that the development of a happy family should be on the top of
the priority list for every parent or parent-to-be. As Lewis Carroll remarked, "One of the
deep secrets oflife is that all that is really worth doing is what we do for others", and no
others are more compelling in their needs than our own children. Excuses abound for
spending time on diversions, but excuses do not aid in doing the task of child
development. They merely assuage the conscience of someone who fails at one.of the real
roles of life, perhaps the most important one, parenting.
As a society we need to turn off the ads. As individuals we need to learn to ignore
them and to concentrate on what is important. We need to know how to work toward
what is important and how to discern what needs to be done. The decision to value
"having waterskis" above "loving our own children" is the worst decision a person could
make.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 43-

The Anti:Child ~Rut

Here is a prescription for any man who suffers from a reluctance to spend time
with his children, feeling it is not a proper thing for a man to do. He needs to
understand where such feelings come from and why they are wrong.

John Donne said, "No man is an island entire unto himself" This is especially true
in the modem world, where it is almost impossible to live isolated from others. Almost
everyone absorbs their customs and culture from those they associate with.
Some men have grown up in a social group where the old-fashioned male anti-
child social prejudice.still reigned and wound up with it deeply implanted in their
personalities. For a time, they can live repeating the excuses about how macho men do
not deal with children, or how men are too aggressive to care for kids, or some other
bologna. Later on, they may realize that this attitude hurts themselves and their families
and deprives them of some of the most rewarding experiences of life. To overcome these
difficulties, they need to understand how to lift themselves out of this rut.
The rut is maintained by two areas of life that have to be changed: first, friendships
with people who downgrade child-rearing have to be diminished in importance and
involvement with the mass media needs to be controlled. Both perform the same function:
they distract us from the need to care for our children.
A person who wants to change his attitude about something needs no better
environment than to immerse himself in people and media that agree with the new attitude.
Specifically, if a man in the anti-child rut were surrounded with friends that were very
interested in children, who talked about themfrequently, who spent their time and money-
helping their children, and who ridiculed any nonsense they heard about downplaying the
importance of children, he would soon finding himself changing.
To be sure, there are some people in the world who are so independent-minded
that the opinions of their friends and asso.ciates mean nothing for them. They are also
likely to be able to change their own attitudes with no assistance whatsoever. The
independent-minded man just says to himself one day, "I'm not anti-child" and he stops
being so. Most people are not like this; they may like to think they are fairly independent,
but that pose is rarely valid. It's fashionable to appear to be a strong, independent type,
but how many can live up to that image for any length of time? Even our leaders are not
free from need for values shared with their friends and associates. The biographies of
almost all of them show that they were surrounded by people who shared their values.
They had either converted their friends or had attracted people of like minds. In short, for
almost everyone, having friends with the proper attitudes is very conductive to changing
or maintaining deeply held opinions. This need forms the basis for support groups of all
kinds, ranging from giant establishments like Alcoholics Anonymous down to small local
groups. It is used because it works.
If a man is constantly in contact with old friends who denigrate his interest in his
children and work to distract him from this crucial task, he may find it impossible to
change his attitudes, just as a reformed alcoholic is not going to stay reformed too long if
 'Versio~·pate: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

he hangs around with his old bar buddies, (There is simply too much mental strain involved
in constantly being under pressure~by' au: ihosewhose opinions have mattered in the past.
For a short time he may stand up to it, but then his resolve will gradually melt away and
old attitudes and habits will reassert themselves. Two solutions are apparent: the
obviously easier solution is to change friends. It would take a man of steel to convert all
his old friends to his new and opposite attitude.
A man striving to change his anti-child attitudes needs to realize that old friends
are not that important, compared to our families. They are just that, people who we
happened to make acquaintance with, who had something in common with us to discuss or
do, and with whom we continued to associate. They are not necessarily the most desirable
of people.
However, as noted above, it is important to almost everyone to have friends. If
old ones are to be left behind, new ones need to found. In most places in America, new
friends are easy to make. Old ones do not have to be dismissed, just reduced in . .
importance. Timewill work in favor of the change, as the old friends may just drift away
as their interests become less and less common with the man improving his attitudes.
It is not hard to find other fathers who are actively interested in their children.
Youth sports organizations, school support groups, scouting organizations, 4H clubs, and
other organizations that work for the benefit .of children are obviously filled with child-
oriented people. With time, new mends with intelligent attitudes about children can be
found.
In some professions and occupations, the anti-child rut permeates the workplace.
In its extreme form, it takes the form of emphasizing workaholism as the ideal mode of
Iiving for a man. A work clique may consists of men (and nowadays women) who
compete with each other at their job, often by working long hours and taking work home.
Status and ego stroking comes from working harder and more successfully. This, of
course, leaves little time left to-spend witha child who needs-a-father: Breaking ourof: --
this anti-child rut may require much more readjustment than just meeting some pro-child
fathers. Perhaps a job change is needed, or even a shocking realization that the world the
workaholics live in is simply a weird distortion of real life, an exaggeration of one aspect
to the detriment of all the rest. Hard work on the job is only one aspect oflife, and
someone who makes it their whole life doesn't have one. The time for proving oneself, for
exaggerated work schedules, for hypercompetition with other males, is before marriage
and before children are born, not after. Living the life of a immature adult, like a butterfly
who stays a caterpillar forever, is simply the failure of a man to make the transition to the
next phase of life and an attempt to hold onto the habits of youth when youth is passing
by. Sooner or later the workaholism is seen to be absurd; better that it be abandoned
while children are young and can benefit from their father's attention than later after they
have grown up to despise the man who ignored them and played all his life away at work.
Friends are not the only influence that subjects American males to anti-child
impressions. The other major factor in promoting the anti-child miasma in America is the
commercial media. America is the nation where consumption has been raised up to be the
dominant ideology; we hear, day and night, messages to consume more. Competing
goods are displayed in store fronts, listed on radio, paraded on television, and shown in
almost every written material known. Americans have become enthralled with spending
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994

money, often on the most useless objects. Why? The reasons are both psychological and ,:)
sociological. ' '," ,~.
We all like to be told we are doing well or are special or are appreciated. This
type of message can come from people, friends or associates, as noted above. ,It can also "
come from mass media sources. We tend to pick out people and sources to spend time on
who give us these reassuring messages. ' Doing so makes us feel less uncertain about what
to do. The example of media figures or the repetition of advertising messages makes us
feel familiar with the kind of consumption they promote. It becomes almost natural to
follow these patterns.
Reassurance before the fact of consumption is available from the media; but
follow-up reassurance more often comes from acquaintances. After buying something, for
example a car or a vacation, we want to be told that this has made us better or that others
respect us for it. It is quite easy to find people whose small talk consists of banter about
such useless topics. We can find people who act interested in our purchasing and our .
possessions. Such a group of people sometimes becomes a clique, whose members trade '
attention back and forth, concentrating on one or more consumption topics. This satisfies
our human need for companionship and our psychological need for positive stimulus,
attention, and praise. It completely suppresses the question of whether such consumption
should be done at all. A company of fools never recognizes its foolishness.
To focus on an example: Why do people without excess money buy new cars
frequently instead of investing their money on choices that will help their children, such as
home computers, sports training, encyclopedias, academic lessons, educational tours,
health care, or any of a long list of child-improving selections? The answer is that they
and their friends hear and see media messages about buying cars constantly. These'
messages are picked up and amplified by the group, which, as a whole, talks about new
cars (and other items of consumption). The buyer of one hears reassurance from his
group and feels he has made a justifiable decision and tells himself he feels better because "
he has bought the car. In all truth, if he was subjected to the proper ridicule for wasting
money on unnecessary luxuries when his children's major or minor needs went unmet,
there would be much less consumption.
Intelligent use of one's income is never, never discussed in America in the major
media. What is discussed there is the purchase of nonsense items, such as vacations in
distant places. There is an obvious reason for this: the major media are paid for by
advertisers. There is a unmentioned agreement in the country to act as if such items were
worth owning or consuming; it is almost a standard repartee on being told that someone is
going on a vacation to say how much the listener would like to go. No one ever questions
the point of it, any more than they do the point of the thousand and one other useless
purchases of American life: house frills, entertainment, cosmetics and luxury clothing, and
so on. We have engineered our society so that it is a mindless reflex to buy what is useless
and does nothing for our lives.
How can this constant drumming be countered? Obviously, one can not leave
society. Instead, one can remember to ask: "Why bother to buy this?" If the question is
asked enough times by enough people, it will someday become an accepted behavior to
act logically and practically about consumption. Then we can turn our lives more in the
Page 46 Version Date: May 29, 1994, KiDDS Notes.

direction that matters: toward the next generation of life, and specifically toward our own.
children.
Until that utopia arrives, a man interested in curbing his anti-child orientation
would do best to reduce his contact with advertising-based media as much as he can. One
way is to simply "Kill your television" as the popular bumper sticker says. Moving it out
to a shelf in the garage or to the local charity will free up more than enough time to let
most men get back to being a father' instead of a TV spectator. Couple that with finding
some new acquaintances who are child-oriented, and a man has gone a long way towards
climbing out of his anti-child rut.
 KIDDSNotes Version Date: May 29: 1994 Page 47

< ';' :.' Children ,,'Are ii;Never·-Borlnq

There is no challenge as ambiguous and as difficult as helping a child reach his or

her full potential. So many factors come into play that there is no limit to the useful
effort that can be applied. lt is too bad many men cannot see that and miss out.

Some of the subcultures that men belong to have strange ideas about children.
. The prejudice that floats through America that tells men to leave their children to their
wives has created some of these. One of the silliest is that children are too boring for men
to deal with, or at least too boring for self-important, self-motivated, hard-charging men.
This. crazy idea actually divides men from one another. A man who takes his children very
seriously, perhaps regarding them as the most important part of his life, might be regarded
as some sort of idiot by men who live for their own pleasure, for their own self-esteem, for
their own activities, career, love-life, or some other facet of a life.
Some of these subcultures actually despise men who want to playa dominant role
in their children's lives. They regard a man who voluntarily seeks to be the custodial single
parent in a divorce as incomprehensible. They have pity for the man whose children are
thrust upon him by his spouse's death or abandonment and figure that his first priority
should be to find another woman to marry and take the children off his hands.
Such a subculture feeds on itself, as do all subcultures. The beliefs that shape the
subculture do not need to have any connection to reality; they simply need to be accepted
by a large enough group that the members of the group can obtain their psychological
benefits by repeating and elaborating the beliefs to one another. In other words, the child-
disdaining subculture types sit around talking. to· each other about how sad it was for-so- .
and-so to get his kids and how they never have changed a diaper in their lives and are
proud of it. As long as a man stays immersed in that type of group, he never gets to
appreciate how loony these ideas are. His contacts, those that he is willing to listen to, all
belong to the same subculture. Other people are regarded as outsiders and the group
builds up the self-esteem of its members by considering outsiders as inferior or at least
quite different.
The dynamics of subcultures is really a subject for sociologists to research and
.investigate, and they could be left alone to do that, except for one fact. Kids get hurt by
ideas like this. No child deserves to have a father who thinks he is too important to deal
with the child and that only women or effeminate men or career-failures worry about their
children and spend large amounts of time with them. The luckier of these ignored children
do all right, but many of them have psychological problems that linger all through their
lives. Kids, even in two parent families, deserve dads sharing their lives. [KiDDS takes its
name from this philosophy.]
Men in these subcultures regard children as boring. They do not appreciate that
children are the least boring parts of their lives, both emotionally and intellectually.
Why do people classify some things as boring and other things not boring? It is
mostly a repetition of what they hear, tempered by what makes them feel superior. Men in
these subcultures may feel superior to children because the child has limited capabilities
 !.Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes

and experience. They do not see themselves in their children. only at a different stage of
life. They see a divide betweenadults and children and never.realizethat the child in each
of us never goes away and is there to explore, have fun, and learn just as much during our
adult time as during our child time. A man who forgets how to be a child loses much of
the happiness oflife.
To an impartial observer, most jobs would appear more boring than time spent
with children. Jobs require skills that are mostly learned prior to the job being taken on.
The job is largely a repetition of the application of these skills, over and over and over,
with perhaps some variation. A machinist learns to run a lathe and other machine tools.
His job is to turn down metals into various shapes. He can regard this as interesting or
boring, depending on his attitude toward work. A doctor learns to diagnose illnesses,
over and over andover. He can regard this as interesting or boring, depending on his
attitude. Either one might regard the other one as having a boring job and their own being
interesting; or their own as boring and the other as interesting.
On the other hand, children keep growing and changing. In each month that
passes by, they learn new activities and probe new avenues, providing of course that their
natural instincts have not been suppressed. It is a challenge to control this process and
direct it into the learning that a child needs to become a successful and self-assured citizen.
The amount of learning a child goes through is mind-boggling. Compared to what a child
learns, starting with physical motions and physical self-control, all the way up to foreign
languages and advanced mathematics, including the psychology of dealing with others,
safety skills in dozens of environments, control of instruments from toothbrushes to power
drills, and thousands of other facts and capabilities, what we learn as adults is pretty
sparse. Watching the child put together in his mind the various concepts he has learned is
always interesting. Figuring out what a child has missed learning, or can usefully profit
from, or might enjoy picking up, or absolutely needs to learn is a challenging task.
Besides the learning activity, which-is probably the most dominant one for
children, children require a variety of services. A single parent has to deal with providing
food, shelter, clothing, education, recreation, hygiene, medical and dental help, and more.
Each of these can be a time-consuming job in its own right. Dual parents can split up the
tasks, but there is still enough to keep both busy, especially if both also have employment.
Virtually no other role in life has so many different demands as child-rearing.
There also is no way that someone can claim that there is no challenge in rearing
children. Some children grow up better than others, and helping your own child to reach
his or her maximum potential is a tremendous challenge. Just figuring out how to find out
your child's talents and potentials is by itself a great challenge, One that career child
psychologists have not been able to agree on a solution to. Providing the right materials
to help your child grow and learn, given that we all have limits on resources and time, is a
very difficult challenge. Information exists, in a variety of texts and assistance services
from schools and other organizations, but the responsibility rests with the parent or
parents. Arranging for help and deciding when that help is productive and when counter-
productive is another difficult task.
The opposite claim could more readily be made, that Child-rearing is one of the
most challenging jobs of all, and that some men cannot stand up to the challenge, as it is
unstructured and ambiguous. It is not a simple task like doing blood tests and interpreting
 V~o~Date:~y29, 1994 Page 49

temperature charts, or following a blueprint. It is largely a mystery and takes intelligence,

intuition, sensitivity, and persistence. All these attributes are demanded of a parent who is
involved in a child's life. Figuring out what went wrong when some problem arises with
the child's health, behavior, educational achievement or other aspects, and then figuring
out what to do about it is another part of the child-rearing problem. Trouble-shooting
almost anything else means following a manual's guidelines. Nobody has yet figured out
the guidelines for children.
The statement that some men's subcultures make (which is adopted by some
feminine imitators) that child-rearing is boring is clearly a colossal stupidity. Child-rearing
is probably the biggest challenge oflife. The feeling of children being boring may simply
be a mechanism that men afraid of the challenge use to justify their not rising to face it.
y~iO~.~~~j;~~t?-d991
.. ".~ ..
KiDDSNotes
KIDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 51

Preca.utions· for
Divorce
Page 52, Version Date: May 29.1994
~ ~:~. _. I • . 1"
KiDDSNotes
KiDDS Notes: Version Date:'May 29;-1994 Page 53

,Buying Property 2,:. -;" ','.,;"':

"': . ~

Some of the biggest hassles in divorce court revolve around competing claims for '
property. There is no excuse for not getting this straight at the time of purchase as
otherwise the perjury playground is open for business.

Many of the divorce cases that drag on through the courts involve the division If
property, both real and personal. Typically, each side claims they own it or they own
shares in it ~hich clash. Forestalling such claims when the property is bought seems t I be
worth the tune and effort. '
When property is purchased by a couple, there are several ways in which it can be
owned. The method of ownership, i.e., who is listed as owner in the title documents, ~oes
not completely determine how it will be allocated by a court during a divorce or breakup,
but it does have a major influence. Other factors that help control it are the method of
payment and who makes it. The sex of the person claiming to own it should not be a
factor, but somehow it often seems to be.' '
There are three major classes of property as far as the divorce court goes. Onel
class is real property, which comprises anything with an address: houses, COndOminiUm!,
vacation homes, rental investments, business property (not held by a partnership or
corporation - this goes into the division of the business), lots held for investment and 0
on; the second class is non-real property with a listed owner, such as automobiles, boats
and planes that have a registration certificate specifying the owner, stocks, bonds and
similar investments, bank accounts, and anything else that has ownership listed
somewhere; the third class is everything else; like furniture, computers, jewelry, '
collections of private treasures, and all the other objects that you might like to keep
possession of after the divorce.
A couple who was wise enough to have used alternative marriage or who simply
stayed unmarried faces much less of a problem of division than one that fell into the state's
clutches and used their system of marriage. Typically, if one of the two takes ownership
of something in one of the first two classes of property and is the only one listed as owner,
the other one faces a very difficult time getting a court (not a divorce court but a non-
divorce court) to grant them some right to partial or complete ownership. Even if the
second person contributed to, it, title is not affected.
For example, a man owns a mortgaged house and his girlfriend moves in and starts
paying half the mortgage payment. If she stays long enough, the equity in the propertyl
builds up and she might think that she owns half of that new equity. Perhaps she feels she
owns half or some fraction of the increase in value caused by inflation or other I
appreciation of its market value. However, since she lived in the house, her payment of
, half the mortgage can be regarded by a court as a rent. No one gets any right to
ownership by paying rent.
Suppose he owns a car and they share use of it, with her paying half the repair
bills. Again, this is most likely to be viewed of as payment for use. Even if she does not
Page 54 Version:pa~: May 29,1994 KiDDS Notes-

use it, the payment of repair money can be simply regarded as a gift unless there is some
document or some witnessed oral agreement to the contrary,
For non-registered property, the sales receipt is the governing document. Who
paid for it? If the receipt is dated before the couple moved in together, it is clear that the
one who owned it initially keeps it. If there is no receipt, then the next best proof of
ownership is the trace of the money that went to buy it. If the money was a check by one
of the parties, and the other cannot show that they contributed half, perhaps by another
check for exactly half the amount, dated around the time of the purchase, the paying party
is the one who owns it. If there is no record at all, and, a dispute arises, the nature of the
property might give ownership. Women's jewelry probably belongs to the woman. An
additional block of collectible postage stamps bought with cash probably belongs to the
one who had been the collector before the relationship or who owned the rest of the
collection. Lastly, if there is no clue who owns a residual pile of'merchandise.iand the
couple can't agree on how to split it up, the court may just decide to divide it equally. One
method is to assess values for each item and then each party getsto pick and choose
alternatively similar amounts of value. An even simpler method is to put everything in a
list, forget about the values, and each party alternatively picks one. They draw straws to
see who goes first. Almost any method of division is better than having the court do it.
So, for couples staying free of the state's control, the important point for each of
them to remember when they are buying anything is to establish clear ownership at the
beginning. Real property has to have a listed owner, and it should be whoever the couple
decides should own it. If they can't decide, they shouldn't buy it. Similarly with registered
property and anything else substantial that is bought with a sales slip. Lesser valued items
should be bought with a credit card in one person's name, or with a check clearly marked
as for the purchase of the object. By following these simple rules, hassles over ownership
are avoided, and a man can establish his ownership clearly so that even the most biased
judge will have to think twicebeforeswitching ownership to his favored gender.-------- --- -
If the couple wants both of them to be owners of the property, then a written
agreement should be used. The most common reason for this is tax: savings. Persons
owning the property they live in are favored by income tax laws and often by property tax
laws. Two common methods of listing ownership together on a deed are tenants in
common and joint ownership. The two methods differ in what happens after the death of
one of the tenants. When one of the owners ofajoint ownership property dies, the other -
gets the whole property. With tenants in common ownership, the heirs of the deceased
party gets that party's share. The decision about which to select clearly depends on the
personal situation of the couple. If they want their families to inherit their property, they
use tenancy in common; if not, joint ownership. This is spelled out in the deed. Either
method of ownership satisfies the IRS.
This is not enough to specify what happens when a breakup of the relationship
occurs. A separate document should be written for this purpose. If there is no document,
it is likely that the court will presume that the two parties each own half If one party
wants to be a three-quarters owner, or some other fraction, this needs to be spelled out in
a legal document before the purchase. What will happen to the property ifbreakup
happens also needs to be spelled out. If it is a house, does one party have the right to buy
out the other one and continue to live there? This is an important consideration if one
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994

person has children and does not want their lives disrupted any further, or if the property: .
is very convenient for one of the parties. Without such an agreement.ieitherparty is likdy:;
to be able to force the property to be sold. The agreement also needs to specify how
much one of the parties must pay the other to buy them out, either by giving a fixed
amount or by specifying how the amount is to be exactly determined, say with a market
surveyor an appraisal. The more definition that is done in the ownership agreement, the
less hassle at the time of breakup. Another consideration is how the payment for a buyout
must be made, Does the person retaining ownership have to come up with the amount in
thirty days? Gaining a new mortgage in that amount of time might be unreasonable. Can
they make payments over a period of time? Thinking through this can prevent a lot of
grief
A man who is suckered into a state marriage has a much worse time of it.
However, there is nothing to prevent him from making it more difficult for the state to
deprive him of his property by making written agreements with his wife before the
purchase of any property. Quite simply, the documents should state who is the owner in
no uncertain terms. A legal document should be created that does its best to keep the
property free from the state's attacks. If the couple wants to have joint ownership of some
property, which is a benefit from the point of view of inheritance taxes, their ownership
document should specify the items listed above: who can force the property to be sold,
who owns what fraction of it, how long one person has to buyout the other and how will
the price be determined. Without the protection of such a well-crafted document, a man is
simply at the mercy of the court.
Even other property than real property should have ownership agreements to block
the state's judicial vandals from taking it from a man who has worked hard to purchase
something, especially ifhe did so before the marriage but purchase occurred later. Once
an ownership document is written, it can simply be reproduced every time some
substantial purchase is made, or a general document could be written. For example, a
married couple could sign an agreement stating that they each separately own their cars.
Then, if a new car is purchased by one and registered in his or her name, it automatically is
covered. This can and should be part of a prenuptial agreement, but if it is not, it should
be done before any major purchases are contemplated.
Without a prenuptial agreement, everything is up for grabs. Suppose a man owns
a house before he gets married. Then, a few years after the marriage, he gets hit with a
divorce suit. His wife claims he gave her half of the house as part of their marriage
agreement and has her brothers testify that they were present when he agreed to that. She
may get half the house. Divorce is a nexus for fraud and perjury, none of which is ever
punished. KinDS and other men's groups have been unable to locate even one case where
a person was prosecuted for perjury in a divorce trial or to identify anyone who has heard
of such a case. Only strongly worded legal documents serve as protection against such
spurious claims. -,
What can a state-married man do who didn't protect himself and then finds himself
facing divorce? Very little. Other sections describe some possibilities, but nothing
compares with doing things right at the time of purchase or the time of marriage. Every
man in America should realize the horror that awaits him in divorce court and should insist .
that nothing be purchased without solid protection for his own interests. If he finds he
Page 56, Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes
-~. ~
,. )

cannot get.that from his wife, then no purchases should be made. Rent or lease everything
until 'this situation changes. .
KiDDSNotes Versi~n Date: May'29,'1994 Page 57

"'Do"¥our Own 'Books'

A husband who gives total financial control during his marriage to his wife may be
setting himself up for a tremendous financial surprise. should his wife decide to take
the money and run. Avoid losses by staying informed.

Marriage often involves a division oflabor.One partner does one set of tasks and
the other does the rest. Partners choose the ones they do best, or they wind up doing the
ones the other can't stand to do, can't figure out how to do, or simply refuses to do.
One particular division oflabor inside a marriage sets up a man to be another kind
of victim. If the female partner takes on the job of doing the family accounting, the male
partner may wake up one day, perhaps with the children, but with a missing wife, no
money, and incredible and formerly-unknown debts. Of course, almost any division of
non-child-rearing labor works fine if it continues until death ends the marriage. Since half
of all marriages end in divorce, and many are surprises to one of the partners, it makes no
sense to allow a man to allow himself to be set up for such a situation.
Some men have very little mathematical or business ability. Others disdain it as a
milquetoast occupation. Others are frankly too lazy to want to concentrate on the
monthly chores of paying bills. Some start doing it and make a costly mistake; then they
withdraw from the problem rather than try to improve their ability or learn from the
mistake. Some are talked into letting their wives do the bills because their wife enjoys
numbers, or likes the feeling of control, or spends most of the money anyway, or works at
a bank, or some other reason. There are countless other reasons for a man to give up
control of his own finances in favor of his wife. His father may have done it that way, and
it worked fine. His wife's mother may have done the accounts in the family, and he sees
no point in trying to argue her out of following in her mother's footsteps. The wife may
make more money, or have investments from before the marriage, or be otherwise more,
experienced in monthly accounting. It seems that each family has their own justification
for this aspect of the division of labor. None are sufficient.
The usual recourse of a man who opts out of the control of his own money is for
him to turn over his salary or wage check or other monthly or weekly income to his wife,
endorsed over to deposit in a joint checking account that she keeps track of He keeps
some checks and tells her how much he spends so she doesn't overdraw the account. She
puts her own salary in the account, pays all the bills from it, balances the account every
month, and decides on the savings plan for the family. Perhaps she tells him about what
happens every month and perhaps he listens for a few months and then just abdicates the
role of participant. He just assumes everything is all right or his wife would be telling him
about it. If they get short of money, she handles it and maybe asks that he economize for
a while. If they have to save for something special, a house or a car or their children's
education, she sets up a savings account for it and does the depositing of disposable
income into it. She does the federal or state income tax, or arranges for a professional tax
accountant to do them for the family. The husband signs the tax forms and doesn't pay
much attention to them. After a few years, he is very out of touch with what goes on in
Page 58 Version Date: May 29> 1994 KiDDSNotes
......
- .. '.

the area of family finances. Maybe he comes up with a few ideas for saving money that he
hears from co-workers and he tells his wife, who decides ifany are'a good ideas and will
be worth doing. She is the one who nags the children to not waste electricity or food. He
concentrates on other things.
When the Wife gets dissatisfied with the marriage, she has some options that he has
probably never thought possible. Like any wife thinking of ditching her family and leaving
for parts unknown, she has the option of taking out the maximum of any joint credit the
couple has, taking the joint savings they may have been building up, cashing in any joint
bonds or stocks they own, and generally liquidating all their assets. A wife who doesn't
have total control of the family finances might have trouble doing all of these tasks. If the
husband does or checks the books monthly, she would have to accomplish everything
within a month or so if she wanted to do it totally surreptitiously. This is almost
completely possible, as no financial institution wants to put more than a month delay in
their customers receiving their money. She could do this and be gone before the time to
.do the books came around to the husband. It might take a bit of pluck to pull it off,
however, as different financial institutions keep different monthly schedules. She would
probably also need to intercept the mail daily, or pull something a bit more clever like
changing the address on the accounts to a post office box or a friend's house. She still has
t worry that the financial institution would call to check on a complete withdrawal.rIt
would take some luck to clean out all family assets. It would require that her signature be
adequate authority on all assets, which is one common way of setting up accounts; the
other, requiring dual signatures, would effectively halt the liquidation unless she was able
to forge the husband's signature - an illegal act.
However, if she was in charge of doing all the accounts herself, she would
certainly have single signature authority so that she could accomplish the accounting
without having to run to her indolent or unconcerned husband to co-sign. Furthermore,
she would have months to accomplish all the liquidation. If she attempted to liquidate one
of the assets incorrectly, she would have time to do it over and get it right. If there were
time-based savings, for example 3-month CD's that can only be withdrawn at the end of a
three month period, she would have time to do this.
This is not the extent of the financial disasters that women have inflicted on their
unsuspecting husbands. A wife in charge of finances can simply fail to pay the mortgage
or taxes on their house or other property. She simply deposits the money that would have
been used into her own secret stash. Banks holding mortgages do not foreclose at the first
sign of late payments. They almost always wait three months, and many times wait two or
three times that, especially if they are given explanations or excuses that seem plausible.
Six or nine months of mortgage and taxes can amount to a substantial amount for a middle
income family. The husband would not have any clue that he was living in a house that
was approaching foreclosure if he was not the one who received the mail from the bank or
savings institution involved. If the wife is even more determined, she can obtain his
signature on a house equity line of credit in advance of her starting this process. One day,
at the beginning of her failure to pay the mortgage, she can simply go to the grantor of the
equity line of credit and pull out the credit limit in cash. Then she fails to pay that debt as
well during the months that the mortgage is being debauched.
KiDDSN~~' Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 59·

The obvious way for a man to prevent this financial rape from occurring is to
protect himself from the first day of the marriage or relationship. That means doing the
books himself: or at least his own, keeping his and hers accounts, having no joint credit,
reviewing the monthly bills to see if there are any arrears building up, especially on any
joint mortgages they have, and more than anything, never be lulled into thinking that his
marriage is permanent andunshakable. Such a dreamlike trance is often financially fatal.
No marriage is guaranteed. Self-protection should never be dropped because of boredom
or overconfidence. A woman can maintain a facade that everything is all right for the few
months it takes to accumulate both their savings and leave her ex-husband with a
mountain of debt. It might even make her so excited and enthusiastic that the poor
unsuspecting husband might think that something about their marriage has improved
rather than that it was rapidly approaching a steep precipice and he would be the one to be
pushed over.
Of course, in divorce court, after such a financial rip-off, the husband may not be .
able to afford the best lawyer, and may not do so well. The wife may simply disappear.
Trying to track someone down is not easy. This amount ofloot may be enough for her to
take the children away and conceal them from him. Alternately, she could leave them with
him and take off with a new boyfriend overseas to start a new life. She may not have
committed any crime whatsoever, in that all the assets she took were hers to take. She
could claim that he agreed that she could take everything she wanted to so that she could
go off and start a new life. Anything is possible, and who can tell what a divorce court
judge might believe or at least act as ifhe believed.
A man should never assume that he understands his wife perfectly, and that she is
not morally capable of committing such an act. This type of rip-off has happened to men
who believed that. Arrogance in a male is absolutely no protection from deviousness in a
female.
Page 60_

- '- _ •.••• <.I •.•..

. ,~. '
" "."
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 . Page 61

Personal Credit

When the going gets rough, those with substantial individual credit resources may
be able to get through the battles better than those who didn 't prepare themselves for
it. Get as much as you can afford.

Divorce is expensive. It has special rules that don't play anywhere else. Debt is
good, assets are bad. You need to prepare before the action starts.
During a divorce, what you have before the divorce is divided into two parts,
yours and common assets. If you didn't have the foresight to make a special arrangement
with your bride before the marriage, and didn't correct the situation during it, whatever
you earned during the marriage is up for grabs. In California and the other seven
community property states, half of everything youearned, except possibly rent, interest,
dividends and other returns on investments related to property you owned prior to the
marriage, belongs to your soon-to-be ex. In other states, the common law majority of the
50, the fraction your ex can successfully claim varies with the judge involved, but it is
almost invariably substantial. All these assets and incomes can be tied up for the period of
the divorce actions, that can last months or even years. Your salary or other income can
also be divided up according to a similar formula. Unfortunately, your expenses may not
be divided or reduced; they will probably go up. You need to be able to pay for them.
You may sit back and think about how foolish you were to allow this to happen, but the
reality is that bills are going to come due.
If you have no separate assets, and no personal credit, you are at the mercy of the
court. You need money and they have control ofit. This means you may have to go
along with your ex's requests in order to get money for necessities, or else figure on living
at a much lower standard of living. .You may find yourself without enough money to
compete with your ex in court, or to pay for childcare for your children.
You may be ejected from your house, and have to find a place to stay. If you have
only a fraction of your income coming in, you may not be able to provide decent
accommodations for your children when they are with you. The court won't care.
Furthermore, it may count against you in the custody decision. This perhaps seems
irrational to anyone logical, but divorce court is not logical. It is a place to strip families,
especially men, of the profits of their hard work and to deny men their children.
If you don't have separate assets, you had better have personal credit. This is
credit in your name alone, that your wife can't jump on and drain before you have a chance
to live from it. Most major banks have lines of credit that are available to individuals,
married or not. You need to have one. If you wait until your divorce is underway, you
may have trouble getting it, as you won't have the income to justify it any more and your
assets are uncertain. Establish it before you even get married, if possible, and pay the
annual fees for it year after year as an insurance policy. Get as much as you can. When
the divorce hits, and the court concentrates its barrages on your finances, you will need to
start drawing on it. Do not worry about being able to pay the interest immediately. The
account should be large enough to cover the accumulated interest payments for the year or
Page,6,2 .
;Version
, ,-.
,',.
Date: May 29, 1994
....
KiDDSNotes

more that the dirtiest part of the divorce takes. Then you can get around to working it
down, after your assets have beendivvied upand you have some cash to work with.
These types of accounts, personal lines of credit, are typically not for withdrawing
cash to buy lunch, but require substantial withdrawals at anyone time. You also need
some revolving credit for daily use, as the courts may find a way to prevent your even
being able to afford daily lunch out of what's left to you. A credit card such as VISA is
the ticket. Get a big .limit, as the court may decide to even deny you such minimal
necessities as a bed to sleep in or a pot to cook in. It all goes to your ex if she gets the
kids and the home, which is typical. You need to keep the existence of such resources
hidden, as anything that can be used to wipe you out further, may be. California does not
require disclosure of credit resources, and probably other states do not as well. Use them
sparingly of course, as maintaining your previous lifestyle may seem offensive to the court.
The court likes to maintain the lifestyle of women and mothers at the expense of their
husbands. Don't make it obvious that they have failed to do so.
Other sources of credit are your friends and relatives. If you have a close
relationship with them, and they are willing to finance your despairing state for the period
of the divorce battles.so much for the better. However, you should have a commercial
credit backup. Ex-wives have been known to lie to their in-laws in order to hurt their ex-
husbands, and your family resources may dry up. The extent of such tales would astound
someone not familiar with divorce in America. Your relatives may not believe all the
details of your abusiveness, miserliness, contempt for others, evasion, etc., etc., but they
may feel that where there's smoke, there's fire, and end the open-wallet policy. Be
prepared. Your children's future may completely depend on the preparation that you
make. Your resources during the critical divorce time may decide whether your children
grow up in a home with your ex-wife, where their self-esteem may be shattered and their
future destroyed, or in your own home where you can give them the support and guidance
they ~eed to do well in our world. Nothing could be more important than that.
 --
IGDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 63

Family Debts

Money borrowed from a friend or relative can be repudiated in divorce court by an

ex-wife. The loan needs to be made legally tight before any divorce action is taken.

Have you borrowed 'money with a handshake? Perhaps you borrowed money for a
down payment on a new family car from your father. You either handled it verbally, or
you wrote a note on your own. What happens during a difficult divorce?
is
The answer that such debts can be attacked by your ex for the purpose of her
not having to repay them. There are two tactics. One is to claim the debt is non-existent
or invalid. The other is to claim it is yours alone.
Without some paper trail that says-that you received the money and did something
with it, the debt may be denounced as a conspiracy by you and your relative or friend to
recoup some of the losses the court imposes on fathers. She says, "It didn't exist and you
made it up. Your creditor and you are going to split the profits from the fraud you are
attempting to pull on me." She claims to never have heard about this loan and that she
certainly would have if there had actually been a loan. Remember, it appears there has
never been anyone tried for having committed perjury in family court.
Alternately, your ex's lawyer may search the law books relating to debts to see if
some technical clause has been inadvertently violated that will allow the debt to be set
aside as invalid and therefore uncollectable. There are a number oflaws in each state that
govern debts, and interfamily or interfriend debts usually never fall afoul of them because
the borrower simply fulfills the conditions of the debt. They were typically made on good
faith, and are repaid in good faith, whether or not the state had technical rules. Rules that
are violated in such a situation are simply waived or more likely, are simply ignored
because they are unknown. But when a debt splits from a two-party into a three-party
arrangement, and one of those parties, your ex, is bent on pulling as much money from the
divorce as possible, these arcane rules can be brought into play.
They involve restrictions on what interest is allowed to be paid, how the loan has
to be documented, how the payments may be made, whether compounding is allowed on
unpaid interest, how long the term can run, what the creditor must do to call the debt,
when such a call can or must be made, and more. Tiptoeing around these rules is not
impossible, of course, as commercial loan agencies such as banks and S&L's do it every
day. But you probably have noticed the reams and reams of small type that changes hands
even to obtain a small loan or to get a credit card. This verbiage is designed to make the
loan comply with the state laws that govern loans. Normal individuals who loan money to
one another do not get involved in such details.
If you have a loan involving a significant amount of money from a friend or a
family member, get it turned into a legal document before any divorce action is
contemplated by either party. This can be done by an individual who wants to involve
himself in reading one oflegal self-help books that exist. Alternately it can be done by a
lawyer. If it is not done, one more financial headache can arise during the divorce process.
Page 64 Version Date: May 29, 1994 IGDDSNotes

Secondly, be prepared to show this was not a personal loan made for your own
uses. In some states, particularly the community property states, loans that are not proven
to be restricted to one separate party of a state marriage are automatically the burden of
both parties. Other state laws may not be so specific. If the money was used to buy
something personal for yourself: it might be possible for your ex to claim that this debt
was yours alone on that basis. All sorts of stories can be made up about how you agreed
to this with her. Because verbal agreements between marriage partners are the common
means of establishing how the finances of the marriage will be handled, this may be
enough for her to establish that you get to pay the whole debt yourself from whatever little
money you have left after the divorce court nukes you. .
To defend yourself make all debts of a size that you wouldn't want to be stuck .
with into formal debts between all parties, including your spouse. Use a form from the
self-help books or copy a form from your lawyer or legal coop society. If possible, do it
when you incur the debt, as going back and redoing it may cause complications both in the
validity ofthe debt and in your relationship with your ex, but, in any case,do it as soon as
you can. It's too late when your ex starts thinking about divorce.
KiDDSNotes VemonDate:May29,1994 Page 65

.Protecting':-~Y,6llr··Records

It may be useful in a divorce to possess good records of your financial affairs. Be

careful to keep good records as the emotional turmoil may prevent your remembering
some things, which will slow down court exactions.

Before 1971, when no-fault divorces became legal in California, it used to be

customary for a couple who just grew tired of each other and wanted to get divorced to lie
in divorce court about who did what. This established fault, i.e., a grounds for the
marriage to be broken up. It may be hard to realize from our vantage point in the 90's, but
divorce wasn't allowed just because two people decided to split. One had to do something
in violation of the spirit of the marriage, Each state would have its rules as to what
constituted grounds for divorce, such as adultery or drunkenness. Typically one of the
parties to a proposed divorce would confess to something to get the divorce. It was
almost always the man who would be the fall guy and take the blame for the split-up in the
tradition of chivalry and other ancient forms of sexist. prejudice.
That spirit of lying in divorce court was pervasive. Nowadays the same spirit
lingers in full force, except that the lying covers all aspects of divorce, including domestic
violence, custody, finances, and anything else. No one ever seems to be even admonished
for lying, especially women. Thus each man going into divorce court has to decide if he is
going to stay with the male notion of sticking up for what is true and taking his lumps or
whether he is going to get down and mislead like others do.
The more control you have over events in the court, the more likely it is that you
will benefit. Control of the court occurs in various ways; one is to be offensive rather than
responsive. Another way is to own the data. Nobody can object to your numbers if they
have no data to base their objections on.
If the court is in the process of dividing you from your income and your assets, it
needs to have information to tell it how much it can extract from each of the various
sources it invades. Where does it get that information? It gets it from either of the
parties, or from the original sources of the data such as a bank. There are a few other
sources available to the courts, such as tax: records. Other than that, they have to go on
what they have. .
If you are the only source of information for some area of finances and you have
problems finding it, that is, if the court and your ex-wife have no source of information
and you cannot remember what it is they are looking for, they will have a much harder
time taking everything away from you. In the opposite situation, where you have no
original information, and have to depend on your ex to provide information, you have lost
any hope of financial influence in court. If the financial decisions are to be controlled in
court via record control, you must have the data. To be honest, you need to have the
actual numbers. To mislead, you must have all copies of the records. Courts run on data.
Proceedings cannot proceed if the information they need is not there.
This has strong implications for behavior in a marriage prior to divorce starting. In
a marriage, if you are keeping the only copies of records relating to your assets, you
Page 66 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

should think about where you keep them. Keeping them inthe family horne is equivalent
to giving copies to your.ex-to-be.iDon't forget you have no rights to privacy in a
marriage. She has the right to calI a locksmith in your absence and have any safe, file
cabinet, lock box or any other container opened. Banks are only a little better, as records
of your use are kept of any safety deposit box at a bank. However, it is relatively easy to
rent storage somewhere. The rent receipts, if any are mailed, will come to 'your address,
and if you have a post office box, they can be sent there. .
The alternative to protecting your records in this way is to come home one day and
find them missing. Perhaps you can remember everything and get backups before you
need them. Then again, any hope you have of controlling data in the disputes to come is
lost. In fact, the data can be twisted and misused to make you appear in a far different .'
. guise than you deserve. A savings account you set up for Christmas presents can be
presented to the court as a sneaky way of stealing money from your ex-wife for your own
private use. Someone who has not heard the absurd stories presented in court by spouses.
would have a hard time believing that such nonsense could beuttered by trained attorneys
or accepted as fact and acted on by experienced judges, much to the detriment of the ex-
husbands involved. Believe it! You save yourself time and trouble by controlling this
information, as then the court does not have to waste its time and get misled by
misunderstood financial arrangements.
Of course, your wife can make all the copies she needs in the years before the
divorce, unless there has been too much withdrawing of cash, moving funds around, or
whatever other complexities might have inhibited her from keeping track of it.
You may be asked to provide all financial data related to anything and everything
you ever did in a long questionnaire sent to you by your ex-wife's attorney, called an
interrogatory. You may also be asked to fill out a special form created for the purpose of
determining both parties' financial records. You can also be forced to answer questions
posed to you by your ex-wife's attorney in an interview, called a deposition, or even in
court, where it is called a cross-examination. How you answer these is your own decision.
If you had only one copy of the records, and accidentally lost that copy when you were
ejected from the family home under some pretense, you have to answer according to your
memory, which may be faulty. If you are forced to answer questions about your finances
that you think you are not sure of and have lost the records to, you should be
straightforward about your doubts and say that you don't remember anything. You
certainly do not want to give false information and later be held to task for it. You can
decline to make a guess if you think you are unsure. Just persist in stating that you don't
recall and don't care to make a guess. Anyone can lose records.
If you have lost records, perhaps it was your ex who took them. Perhaps she is
hiding them to make it look like you are a villain. If you're not sure of what happened in
some of these situations, play it safe. If you are shown a document to attempt to jog your
memory, if you don't remember ever seeing such a document, don't hesitate to say so.
Your memory is your own and maybe your only sure possession. If a document looks like
a forgery or some other ruse, don't hesitate to say so. Putting someone's signature on a
document is much easier now with personal computer scanning systems.
If you have substantial assets and your ex-wife wishes to find out about them,
there are services that will contact all US banks, US stock brokers, US mutual funds, and
KiDDS Notes' Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 67

inquire as to whether you have money on deposit there. All that is needed is your social
security number. Very few US financial institutions are free from this system. It is done
mostly by computer, and takes only a short time. Your ex's lawyer is probably familiar
with these services.
Overseas banks and funds are not so well organized, and if your lost records
concern overseas accounts, an inquiry may turn up nothing usable. This is surprising,
because overseas accounts are no harder to obtain or use than are ones at your corner
bank, except you need a more expensive stamp. One of the reasons for this is that many
other countries do not have the same system of financial assault on men that the US does,
and they do regard privacy as an important matter.
Of course, if you wrote personal checks from the US into an overseas account,
you can use the check records to help yourself remember what you did. If you were
foolish enough to have used cashier's checks purchased with cash, you may have ruined
any chances of your being able to remember what you did. Be more careful next time!
The same goes for cash transactions. Make sure you keep good records of any .
cash you have stored anywhere for emergencies or unforeseen contingencies so that you
can provide that information when it is needed. Even though you may not agree with the
US laws allowing men to be severely financially penalized for marrying a financial non-
equal, you don't want to carry on like a bank robber hiding loot around the country, and
especially you don't want to forget where you put it or even that you had any. If you
grow angry at the concept that someone who chooses not to work deserves to be richly
supported because of it, or at the concept that the less someone works the more they get
from you, your anger may interfere with your memory. Any strong, persistent emotion,
especially one that is justified, can interfere with good memory. A feeling of depression,
caused by the powerlessness of an individual man to achieve anything remotely resembling
justice or equity in a court, may also interfere with your memory or even your interest in
financial transactions. So keep good records!
Seeing your children taken from you by a .prejudiced judge and suffering greatly
because of it is very emotionally jarring and depressing, and it may distract you from your
normal financial affairs and impair the former financial acumen that you had. It is hard to
remember something financial when you are worried that your children may be taught to
hate you, or programmed to lie about you, or any of the other horrible actions that ex-
wives have been known to take. So keep good records!
US tax records can also be used to help yourself remember what you did. You or
your ex can obtain any lost returns from the IRS for a minimal fee. If your affairs are too
complicated during or preceding the divorce or if you were too overwhelmed by the
upheaval of divorce or the turmoil in the marriage to have remembered to file, at least
remember to make sure that you have overpaid your withholding so no interest or
substantial fines will be levied against you if you can't manage to get your returns filed,
even for years. Make sure you check the actual law r~lating to late returns, so you don't
add a tax problem to any already overcomplicated problems you might run into with the
divorce. Of course, not having completed tax returns again may interfere with your
figuring out all the financial details related to lost records or forgotten transactions, so you
want to make sure you do them if you can.
Page 68 VersionDate: May29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
.J
}~<~.:j -: ~:.,:i."'/'. ,~·~.r·._~ r.v..:>,'!.~:"j

.-:', .' ~, ..... -,

.-. - ~
..
.-:I
KiDDSNotes VersionDate;May 29, 1994

During Ma.rria.ge
Crisis
Page~O Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
,..f"",:' .. ,
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 71

.Salvaging Your Marriage. ':''

The least you should do in a possibly savable marriage is to correctly diagnose the
cause of the breakup, be it an initial misunderstanding, a desire for change, betrayal or
boredom. Then you can figure the cost of marriage repair.

Two parents who get along with each other can certainly rear children better and
more easily than a single parent. Hopefully, you and.your spouse both believe that having
and rearing children is an important part of life. Thus, if you are having difficulties with
each other, the first step should be to think first about getting your priorities lined up
correctly and seeing if you can make the marriage work.
There are certain actions that can to improve a marriage that has problems. A
large number of people in America make their living improving other people's marriages.
Successful commercial enterprises do it. Churches have programs to do it. Books have
been written about it. It can be done, in some circumstances and with some costs. Do
you want to do it?
We are not talking about completely divided couples here. If your wife has already
left you for another man and is having a ball with her new relationship, you are not in the
salvage business. You are in the cost containment business. On the other hand, if the
marriage is dying because it is just uncomfortable, there may be a chance to save it.
Is your marriage worth salvaging? The very first thing to decide is if you are able
to think clearly about the situation. Are your emotions so engaged that you cannot
contemplate continuing the marriage in any way without getting tense, angry or
depressed? If so, is it possible for you to chill out and get yourself into a rational state in
order to do the necessary question-asking and decision-making that this major life juncture
requires? Do you need to get away for a few days and wind down? It is certainly worth
the expense and disruption of a few days away to clear your mind. The costs of a divorce
are in the multiple thousands, not to mention the pain inflicted on the children and
yourself Go visit someone mellow. Go relax in the sun or throw yourself down a snowy
mountain. Do whatever you need to in order to be able to concentrate without emotions
disrupting your chain of thought.
There are two obvious disparate situations: your spouse wants to divorce you or
she hasn't made that decision firmly yet. You need to assess which it is first. Let's assume
that you know that your wife wants out. As you just as happy to go along with her? In
the etiology of many divorces, relations get worse and worse gradually, until both parties
get near their limits and one decides to start the breakup. In this situation, you need to
find out why the process of argument and quarrel escalated. It is not enough to simply
blame your spouse. She is probably blaming you and you are both likely to be right. It is
human nature to react to something insulting with another insult, which leads to another
insult and another and so on, until fission occurs. Inside each of us lies the capability of
reacting in different ways. In the beginning of marriage, the love-love-love time, we
instigate and react with pleasing comments. Later on, this shifts to a cooperative phase.
But lying in wait is the capability we all exercised as children, of taking offense and giving
Page 72 Version Date: May 2~. 1994 KiDDSNotes

it right back. Once that starts it may go on and on for months and years, until, like a
corrosive chemical, it has eaten away at the history of pleasant relations that existed
before. One of you needs to stop the process and deflect the insults. One of you has to
become an absorber, rather than a reflector of attacks. With good luck, the pattern will
gradually shift back to one of cooperation.
Other considerations arise when one partner has decided to change the other one.
If she, or you, entered the marriage with the feeling that you were not satisfied with what
your partner was, but felt you could change the other one into something better, you are in
a very difficult situation. People do not readily change, and usually do not remain
changed. The same situation arises when one partner enters the marriage with an
erroneous view of the other, either by simply assuming somethingincorrect or via fraud or
deceit.
This situation also arises when one of the partners changes their viewpoints about
what they want ina partner, and the other one no longer matches the new views.
If you are the one who is no longer satisfied with your wife, you need to ask
yourself if your new standards are worth your children's suffering. Standards are
sometimes reasonably easy to change, provided that it is done in the proper way. You
may need the help of a professional, but the main idea is to ask yourself what criteria are
you using to judge your spouse. Where did these come from? Why are they so
important? What other good qualities does she have that you might pay more attention
to? Spend time in appreciation, rather than comparison.
If you are the one who is expected to change, you have two solutions and a wide
range in between them. You can either think about changing to meet your spouse's
standards, and see if you would like to be different and can invest the large mental effort
to do that, or you can think about changing your spouse's standards. That requires
excellent communication skills. You would have to be able to learn where your spouse's
new requirements originated, and how firm they are. Then comes the task of convincing
her to accept something different. Of course you can remind her of your own admirable
qualities, and perhaps some compromise is possible.
Besides the "quarrel modes" and the "change required" reasons for divorce, there
is betrayal. If one of you did something the other regards as unacceptable, there is no
other recourse than to apologize or accept an apology. Obviously the period after that is
going to be one of suspicion on the part of the one who was betrayed. Best behavior is
going to be required for years on the part of the perpetrator.
Worse than betrayal, constant quarreling, and the demand for change is ----
boredom. In our entertainment culture, some marriage partners expect that their spouses
are going to be continually amusing, pleasing, innovative, or something else to stave off
boredom. They marry a clown, a party animal, an athlete, or some other role rather than a
whole person. Their partner's job is to keep amusements the other can observe. People
sometimes adopt roles for the purpose of courting and, when the honeymoon is over and
the marriage is cemented in place, they revert to a more natural and relaxed mode of
behavior. The other partner, intent on more amusement, finds that the spouse is not living
up to expectations and thinks of what to do to keep the constant flow of entertainment
coming in. Finding another person wearing the same mask is one alternative, creating
KiDDS Notes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 73

problems at home for a diversion is another. They might not even realize that boredom is
the real culprit.
The only cure for the boredom syndrome is the education or maturation of the
entertainment glutton. Perhaps some innocuous source of amusement -- an infinite series
of videos? --could be found. This would most likely only stave off the inevitable. There
has to be a growing up. The role of the former clown, etc. in this is to gently explain that
life is not a circus and can't be lived as one forever. Sooner or iater the serious tasks of
life have to be taken on.
There are other reasons for divorce other than the big four listed above. They
have to be diagnosed individually. The main point is to understand, rationally, what is
happening in the marriage that is causing problems. The processes that occur need to be
observed and, if at all possible, communication between the partners needs to occur to
focus the thinking of both on what the real problem is. This is the first point that you want
to get to. It is the big decision point. Once you understand the problem, you can decide
what the cost or means would be to repair it. And you can compare the effort needed to
repair and maintain the marriage with the results of allowing it to continue down the road
to a complete rupture. If you decide to make an attempt to repair it, you can always '.
terminate the attempt later if it looks like you underestimated what would be required to
do so.
For example, if you happened to inadvertently marry a boredom-prone wife, and
she already has found another source of amusement, perhaps someone she is spending
more and more time with, the costs of reestablishing the marriage may be so high as to be
impossible. You do not want to devote your entire life to playing to an audience of one.
You have to recognize at this point that you made a blunder in choosing a wife, if indeed
you wanted a long-term marriage. Best now to limit the damage and get on with the job
of taking care of your children.
The repair work you need to do is closely related to your diagnosis of the problem.
If that is wrong, any action you take in trying to help the situation is likely to go awry.
You need to first establish that your view is valid. Even if it persists in your mind for a
long period of time, it may be quite wrong. Errors sometimes do not go out quietly.
Other people's viewpoints are needed for a validity check. You can talk to your spouse,
which will work in some situations, but not in others. Better is to obtain the advice of
people who know the both of you and who have opinions you can respect. Some people
regard their friends' marriages as something not to be discussed openly, but most will talk
privately, especially if you guarantee that their opinions will not be repeated to your
spouse or to anyone else. You need to explain the desire you have to maintain the
marriage for your children's sake, and hope that the friend that you have chosen can
recognize that goal. Who knows, your spouse may have already talked to this person and
he or she does not feel like repeating it to the other side. You need to find someone who
is not likely to take sides.
If you have no friend to call upon, it is time to hire a friend. There are
professionals who will be more than happy to review your diagnosis and possibly ask you
pointed questions to get to the bottom line. Unfonunately, in the marriage counselor field
there are many incompetents as the field is not licensed and no standards exist. Go wi t h
someone with a substantial reputation among people you know. They may want to
Page 74 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDS Notes

interview your spouse, which you may agree to or not. You can call the shots. If you
simply want a trained person to listen and respond to your views on your relationship, you
can request that approach. You can use the counselor to help you map out a strategy for
salvaging the marriage. You could even use the counselor as a coach. Whatever course
you take, you gain some ability to return the relationship to a functioning form.
By this point, you have a credible diagnosis of the problem within your marriage
and how to fix it. You are taking on the role of doing what is necessary to repair it from
your side, and perhaps making it possible for your wife to do the same by communicating
with her and altering your own behavior as much as you have chosen. If, after some time,
this fails, you can go about the task of the divorce with a clear understanding that you
intelligently did as much as a thoughtful and caring human being could, and the marriage
was simply not savable. This is much better than always having a doubt about what might
have happened. Lastly, it will clear your conscience before the battles to come in the
divorce.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 75

Marital Counseling

There are many theories of marital counseling, and nothing beats going to several .
counselors to find one who works for you and your spouse. Even if counseling fails,
you may understand each other better and have an easier divorce.

If you can't solve your problems with your wife alone, and your friends don't seem
to be of much help, it might be worthwhile to call in the experts. Any city of any size will
have a collection of marital therapists who will work with you to reduce the problems you
have. The main problem is finding one who will not make relations worse.
There is no universally accepted theory of marital counseling. There is no .
universally accepted method of marital counseling. There are a wide variety of counseling
. theories and methods, and it might seem every one who does counseling develops some
twists that seem to work for him or her. However, counselors do not usually give out
guides to their services beforehand so that you can pick what system you want to
experiment with.
There are different ways to choose specialists. One way to pick a dentist is to ask
friends for recommendations. After all, teeth are teeth. Marriages are more varied.
Perhaps you can get a personal recommendation from some friends for a marital
counselor. However, don't assume that what worked for your best friends will work for
you. The success of the methods depend to a large degree on the personality match
between the therapist and the couple he or she treats, unlike what happens in most other
professions. Unless your problems are just like those of your friends and your
personalities are the same as well, and the odds are a million to one against that, you
cannot assume it will be the same for you as for them. You simply have to experiment
with one or more counselors until you find one who makes you feel there is some chance.
Don't be afraid to play around, visiting one for a month or two and switching if it doesn't
seem to be productive. You must make this decision with your spouse, as going to
someone that only one of you can relate to isn't going to be much help.
One theory is that problems are largely those implanted in us in our childhood, and
we need to be able to go back in time to understand these origins. This is commonly done
in psychological therapy for individuals; applying it to couples is a natural extension. A
layman's description is included in Harville Hendrix's Getting the Love You Want.
Another theory is that problems come from the inability to communicate. The
obvious therapy for such problems is for the couple to learn to communicate with each
other without any emotional reaction cutting off the channel. It starts by teaching the
couples a series of exercises, designed to facilitate communication of simple messages.
One exercise is simply echoing, in which one spouse repeats what the other says instead of
reacting to it defensively.
Another theory is that problems come from pent-up or repressed emotions, and the
partner (or both) who cannot let their emotions be seen by the other has to learn to be
open about it. An extension of the theory is that the partner who represses his or her
reactions or feelings is seen by the other partner as disinterested or dissatisfied, which
Page 76. Version
. '. .' -.: "'.,Date:
'-.- _.-.
May 29, -.1994
,. ~-~
KIDDSNotes

makes that partner unhappy anduncertain over their, place jn the relationship, Getting
.over this fear is gradual, and the therapy to do this ofteninvolves the therapist working
with that partner alone until some progress has been made, when he or she can come back
to work together with the other partner in the marriage.
. Another theory is that understanding the other partner is the missing element, and
the corresponding therapy involves extensive testing of the partners and the sharing of the
results. Then the therapy goes on to exploring the background and emotions of each of
them, with the listening partner prohibited from interacting.
Any marital counselor can use any or all of the above, or others not listed, in any
combination or order that he or she sees fit. Some may adapt their choice of therapy to
the personality of the couple or to their description of their problems.
The bottom line is that the choice of therapy is not important. What is important is
that the couple go through an experience that promotes them to change somehow. The
situation they are in, psychologically speaking, is untenable. Anything that can cause them
to change, preferably both so neither feels exploited, is likely to lead to an improved
relationship. The marriage relationship that the partners had was not working, and in
order to make it work, some substantial changes have to be made. The changes can
simply be in the way they speak to each other, in their viewpoint of the other or their
knowledge of the other's past and background, or even in their deepest desires, rooted in
unhappy childhood experiences. Sometimes fear needs to be overcome on the part of one
of the partners,who is afraid to change. Other times arrogance needs to be overcome on
the part of one of the partners who feels that the other one is to blame, and who refuses to
see the other's viewpoint at all. Perhaps only a habit needs to be altered .
.If a good marriage counselor is found, and the marriage is repaired and the
children saved from living through divorce, major benefits will happen to everyone
involved. However, some situations turn out in the opposite direction. In:cases where
one of the partners has very serious psychological problems, it may turn out to be a waste
of time and money, if that partner cannot realize that such problems exist. Divorce is
probably not to be averted, but at least the non-psychologically disturbed partner has the
assurance that he or she is not at fault. Alternatively, if the couple never explored their
separate goals to see if they matched or clashed, marriage counseling may simply lay these
out on the table before them, and may make the inevitable divorce easier to do and likely
to occur earlier. These explorations do not result in the children being able to grow up in
an intact and happy family, but they may provide the next best situation: two parents who
are able to appreciate the other and to cooperate in rearing their children.
IGDDSNotes Version Date: May 29. 1994 'Page 77

., ... ..
.. ~ ~ '

Trial Separation'

Trial separation is when your wife leavesyou and you have the chance to take care
of your children. Don't you leave without them or let her take them. If she won't go,
spend more time alone with your kids; they'll like it and you'll improve your attitude.

If you feel you cannot stand living with your wife, for whatever reason, someone
may suggest to you that you have a trial separation. This is done without any courts or
any lawyers being involved. Usually it is done by childless couples, where one of them can
simply go away for a while and see if he or she likes being alone, but any married person
can think about doing it. .With children, there is one additional consideration';
If you leave without your children and divorce erupts later, forget about custody
for a long time. Splitting and leaving your children, no matter how fine your
psychological reasons are, is a clear sign to any mediator or judge that you simply put
yourself first and your kids last. If you think a trial separation might help you and your
spouse figure out what is wrong and enable you to get back together soon and make the
marriage work, that's fine. Invite your wife to leave you to take care of the kids while she
does something on her own. If your hope doesn't come to fruition, and you don't get back
together, you have a very strong case for custody. This is almost the best possible result
that could happen to help you get custody, short of your wife committing some unsavory
acts. If you need to stretch the family budget to accommodate her absence, by all means,
stretch it. If you are worried that your wife will fool around on you during the separation
time, you probably are worried that she has already done so or would do so even if you
stayed together. Your children are of greater importance. Don't forget that fact in a fit of
jealousy. Allow your wife to go. Spend the time building your relationship with your
children, participating in all the areas oftheir lives, their school, their play, their welfare.
If your wife is not interested in leaving the home and letting you have defacto
custody of the children, don't consider leaving yourself You may feel a tremendous
amount of emotional anguish, or anger, or sadness at continuing the relationship. You
may have to force yourself to go home at all. Try a different strategy. Spend your time
with your children. Thinking about yourself and your marital problems all the time is
enough to make your emotional state get worse. As you get more and more emotional,
you may behave in ways that make the marriage worse. The antidote to this is plain.
Simply stop spending so much time on your relationship with your wife and think about
what you can do with your children. How can you spend time alone with them? What
can you do to amuse them? If your communication is not very good with them, now
would be a good time to improve it. Children seem to be a tonic for depression, as they
are so full of energy and vigor. Take them to a park, even if you feel like the world is
ending. No matter how wretched your own self-opinion is or how worried you are about
whether you can make your marriage work, you are still the father of your children.
Concentrate on them and on improving their lives.
Page 78 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

They may have noticed that you are more down, more irritable, more cranky or
worse since the marital problems started or deepened.' Youcan relieve their worries by
spending time with them. Take your children to a sports game or participate in some
activity yourself The excitement of sports is good therapy for the marital blues. Take
your kids out with another father and his children. Take a weekend night walk and look at
the stars. Go explore nature. Visit a museum. In almost all areas of our country there are
countless activities to do. If your children are very small, stroller walks are fine. Simply
use your own creativity to come up with a list of activities that you can do alone with your
children, without your wife, and start doing them.
As you take more time with your children, reflect on how lucky you are to have
such children. Don't think about how bad their life might become if the divorce you
foresee comes to pass. Don't worry about how they are going to be taken care of or
whether you can do it. Simply be as good to them in the present as you can. Almost
invariably, your own attitude will improve,
What you have done is taken the idea of trial separation and simply put it in place
in one area of your life, arguably the most important one. You are enjoying time alone
with your children. Whether it is as simple as going to the library with them and reading
them stories, or a weekend camping trip, you are away from your wife, whose presence
makes you distraught, and with your children, whose presence should make you happy or
at least distracted. Push this as much as possible, and remember that as you and your
children increase the closeness of your relationship, you are also making it more clear that
your wife can take off for a trial separation if she wants to with no worries about child
care. You can add in household activities, like making meals for your children or teaching
them something like how to vacuum or microwave food. This doesn't have to involve ariy
rudeness to your wife. If she reacts negatively to your activity with your children, simply
hold tight to your notion that fathers have an equal place in children's hearts and in the
home, and keep on being with them. Perhaps your wife will get over her displeasure with
you or change whatever it is that upsets you, and perhaps she won't. Either way you are
cementing together the most important relationship for the future -- you and your children.
 .' ". ". ~ t-'! ' .

IGDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page79 .

On the Popula.rity of
Divorce
Page 80 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDS Notes .
 ,
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29.1994 Page 81

The Great American-Divorce. Profits

Machine

The profits created by divorce in America are enormous, and drives lawyers to
maintain the mystique that divorce law is complicated and has to be vel}' costly.
Dividing up possessions and figuring out custody is not that hard.

Where else but in America could somebody fill out forms for $200 an hour?
Where else could somebody sit in the back of a courtroom for a half-day, only to be called
up for a few minutes of repeating cliches or simple.statements and make $1000? Where
else could someone take the life savings of hundreds of couples for doing work that an
intelligent high-school graduate could do and not be prosecuted for it but instead be
regarded as a contributor to society? Where else could a herd of flunkies sit around-
Xeroxing at a dollar a page, or taking shorthand or transcribing a tape recording for $50
an hour.
Divorceis not a difficult process like engineering. It does not require skills as
delicate or as complicated as those of an artist. It is simply a process of dividing up the
property that two people own together and figuring out who will care for their children.
People who have not been involved with a divorce often have the impression that
law is a difficult area of knowledge. Family law certainlyis not. The laws that are
involved are as easy for a non-lawyer with some terminology experience to understand as
they are for a lawyer. Remember that the laws are created by a legislature, many of whose
members are not lawyers. Their staffs, who read and modify the bills creating these laws,
are also often non-lawyers. Yet they are quite capable of understanding what is said. The
law is not written to be complicated. It is written to be understandable.
Furthermore, the other half of the law, decisions that the supreme and appellate
courts give, are also quite understandable. They are believed to be difficult to understand
as American students never have any contact with them. If a senior high school civics
course teacher in a good school took the most important ten laws and ten cases relating to
family law and gave them to his or her students to understand and comment on, there
would be no difficulty in the teenagers comprehending the material. However, a typical
man entering divorce court has probably never read a book of statutes of his state. He
does not appreciate how easy it would be to understand them.
If contact with the basic material is not enough to convince the high school
students that family law is within their range of comprehension, they could read some
sections out of the various forms books that lawyers use to prepare their work. Forms
books are simple cookbooks for preparing most of the motions and answers that lawyers
use. In California, most of the usual motions that lawyers make during a divorce case
must be entered into court on forms prepared by an arm of the court system, called the
judicial council. Filling out these forms takes no sophistication beyond knowing what the
client's goals are.
 Page 82 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

Besides the materials and the forms, there is a certain amount of experience that
lawyer; bring to divorce cases. It is hard to see what exclusive benefit this should be:
'. Knowing what judge is most prejudiced toward women is something of use, but that
knowledge could easily be compiled by court statisticians, rather than being closely held
by lawyers. The rest of the experience is codified in various manuals that are available to
the general public. In these manuals, lawyers are walked, step by step, through the
decisions that they need to make on how to prepare their cases. Having a few examples of
the usual forms, motions, briefs, stipulations, and so on to copy would provide much of
the information anyone would need to make these decisions and prepare their own forms.
What then is the mystique that allows lawyers to take so much money from
families that desperately need if in order to establish two households where one existed
before? Besides the lack of familiarity with law that most divorce victims have, there
seems to be a number of features that maintain the illusion that divorce law is difficult.
The trappings such as fancy legal paper, judges in funny robes sitting behind funny desks,
everybody looking solemn and official, old Latin words thrown into conversations,
references to cases that the lawyers looked up before court, bailiffs announcing the coming
and going of the judge, and some more silly details add to the feeling that this is more than
a car repair shop, and the people involved are not nonnal people but somehow special,
supra-intelligent types. It is simply not so. Judges and lawyers are as normal as car repair
guys, and some cars are harder to repair than couples are to get divorced. It is simply a
matter of picking up the customs of divorce law and divorce courts, just as it is a matter of
knowing how carburetors work to fix one.
A chilling expose of the incredible profits produced for the "Divorce Industry" are
listed in Paul Bohannon's book, All the Happy Families". His first chapter gives enough
information to estimate how much is involved, and he concludes that more money is spent
on the Divorce Industry than anyone realizes. This collection of profiteers of broken
families includes not just the courthouse gang oflawyers, judges, clerks, recorders,
custody evaluators, bailiffs, process servers, private detectives, expert witnesses, child
psychologists, referees, etc. but also the real estate industry -- one-fourth of houses sell
because of divorce and more are bought by single people each year --, furniture
companies, electronics importers and other home furnishing dealers, child care providers,
dating services and entertainment -- single people go out more --, newspaper and
magazine publishers -- single people read more and each household maintains its own
subscriptions -, and many more who profit from divorce. With multiple billions of dollars
flowing to the Divorce Industry annually, a cynical person could conclude that the major
reason for the explosion of divorce in the United States in the last few decades was that it
was a significant profit generator for much of the economy. Billions of dollars of extra
profits can get a lot oflaws passed and a lot of articles supportive of divorce written, and
can cause a lot of other effects in our society that help along the flood of divorces.

4 Bohannon, Paul, "All the Happy Families", McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1985.
KiDDSNotes Version PaiJ:'M.ay 29,1994 Page 83

The Next·-Generation· r
'

America's next generation is growing up with a large number of mother-headed

families that have high rates of every type of social problem. Fathers must take back
their rights and responsibilities to children before the downward spiral grows worse ..

Divorce is not just a personal problem, it is a national problem. Children who are
given into their mother's custody and are largely without the guidance of a father have a:
much higher rate of social problems. Daniel Amneus, in "The Garbage Generation", has
collected seventy pages of commentary and statistics on the problems of such children. It
is an inescapable conclusion that mother-reared children have a much higher rate of school
problems, teenage pregnancy, drug and alcohol use, and criminal activity and convictions.
It is not hard to understand that the removal of the steadying influence of a father would
do this.
It has now been about thirty years since the revolution of frequent divorce swept
over America. The children of this divorce revolution are now populating the nation, and
are highly represented in its jails and rehabilitation centers. Statistics have not yet been
collected on employment, but, based on the poorer school performance data of fatherless
children, it is likely that the children of divorce are contributing less to the economy of the
nation, and are occupying a large part of its welfare niches and unemployment numbers.
Another conclusion from the numerous studies is that children of divorced families
are more likely to divorce themselves than children of intact families. Their children will
then join the ranks of children of broken homes. This means that the problem of social
difficulties from divorced children is likely to grow worse each year, as a larger number of
children fall victim to this situation. A worsening economy puts greater stress on all
working people, and less well prepared children are less likely to be able to turn the
economy around and return it to a healthy state.
Where is the nation going when crime levels creep upward every year, drug usage
never seems to go substantially down, welfare costs gradually increase, and the average
take home pay of workers slips slowly downward? Certainly all of these are not wholly
caused by the aftlictions of fatherless children, but it is certain that their situation makes
these problems worse. Schools seem to be growing worse and worse, with more and
more of teachers' time being used to discipline unruly children, or even to worry about
violence. Whether or not America can come up with a way to deal with these problems
remains to be seen, but one possibility is that for the next several decades, our nation will
continue to slide down the path toward more social unrest and social problems. Nothing
has appeared that would arrest the slide.
One solution to the problem would be for men to take back their right and their
responsibility to rear their children. The ubiquitous social prejudice that blocks men from
realizing their rights and responsibilities and then blocks aware men from fulfilling them
must be cast aside. Children deserve to have their fathers and social prejudice that denies
them this advantage has to be removed. There is no logical or reasonable explanations for
 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes

this prejudice. It simply has grown up, like a repellent weed in the middle of a flower
garden, caused by nothing except indifference. - . , :
Fathers who hesitate to battle the courts for custody of their children because they
feel their wife is "good enough for the kids" may be hurting their nation more than they
realize. By allowing a "good enough" parent to rear the next generation, they are doing
their part of depriving the nation of part of a next generation of excellent workers. One
family's children may not make a giant difference in what happens to our nation, but
collectively, the "good enough" decision will lead to not just more social problems, but
also to a lack of competitiveness, nationally and internationally. It will lead to more adults
wrapped up in their own self-indulgences and less concerning with volunteering their time,
effort and creativity to help the riation. America was created as a "light unto the world"
not by people concerned with their own entertainment and amusements, but by citizens
who established themselves first and then devoted themselves to the welfare of others.
We need to create an environment for children to grow up in which encourages their own
efforts, both on their own behalf and on behalf of others. Children growing up with a
parent who has a major part of their income coming from unearned sources such as
alimony and child support do not see an example of self-reliance as they would if custody
were decided differently. There is no greater gift that a father can give his children other
than to be an example of what they can grow up into. To be such an example, a father
needs to be in constant contact with his children. He needs to show them the way to live
and to help them to learn. America needs such fathers in their fathering roles more than it
needs absent fathers making more income or achieving more career successes.
KinDS NoteS" Version Date: May 29,; 1994 Page 85

No Education is' a' Bad 'Education,' ::,{. ;t'."

- The great social disaster of divorce could be reduced if young people were required
to learn something about how to maintain a marriage befor.e they graduated from high
school. There are few obstacles to creating such a course.

In terms ofthe grief that it causes, divorce is at the top of the list of situations to
avoid. What else crunches the self-esteem of each member of a family, makes finances
turn difficult or horrible, creates animosity where tolerance may have been, leaves children
confused and bewildered, and subjects fathers to indignity and discrimination, to name just
some of its nasty effects? Divorce has been around for centuries, yet, starting in 1970 or
so, it has increased in frequency so much tliat nearly half of all marriages fall apart and half
of all children live in a torn family for part of their childhood. A logical person might think
.that anything this important that continued to have major social effects this long should
have made a tremendous effect on education, creating a demand for knowledge on how to
avoid these disasters. Yet there seems to be little or no preparation for marriage or
relationships in schools.
There also seems to be very little material available to young people on how to
make marriage work in the popular media. There is a deluge of information on how to be
attractive to the opposite sex, how to meet possible partners, how to deal with the dating
process, how to behave with members of the opposite sex, and other mate-finding areas.
Yet the problem of maintaining a relationship receives remarkably little attention.
Perhaps that is because there are few commercial products that can be sold for relationship
preservation, as opposed to the myriad of them available to people involved with dating.
The result of this lack of education is that each graduating class still goes out to
make the same mistakes that the previous ones did. Many young people marry a person
who is wrong for them, and with whom a marriage is doomed to fail. Alternately, they act
within a marriage in a way that drives the relationship onto the rocks. They don't know
that behavior in a marriage has to be different from behavior in business. They act in ways
that disrupt their relationship, having never weighed the consequences. Some are unable
to control themselves, either from anger or from sexual desire for others. Some
unilaterally try to change the bases upon which their marriage was founded, not stopping
to consider what effects will spin off from such a change. In short, many different kinds of
divorce-threatening actions are taken in ignorance,
Preventive medicine for divorce is available. Half of all marriages survive until the
death of one of the spouses. What is it that they do right? Why can't we distill these
secrets and give them to people who are not yet married so that they can use them to have
a lasting marriage, if they want one. There is a thriving business in America in marriage
counseling, where a trained psychologist works to treat a marriage close to breakup, and
tries to restore it. In order to do this well, the psychologist must understand what it is that
breaks up marriages and what it is that preserves them. Where did the psychologists get
that knowledge? Some of it is from experience, but undoubtedly some of it from their
Page 86 Version Date: May 2~, 1994 KiDDS Notes ~"'J'
,~
•• ~ r,_--:._ ..;•

university education. Why can't that education be made available earlier, to everyone.In
• . . ~'. ' .. '. F _ -', . • -: ..•. ;:: ,~_..•~ --..:'. 5.. ~;' _ '!:,~.t~;t' .
early high school years? . " '" --, ,,' ' ":, .. :'. ,}.,,,,n;i:'">
Few teenagers marry before sophomore year in high school. What would happen
if these young people were presented with the information needed to form and maintain a
successful marriage? Are they too immature to appreciate such information? The material
would not be particularly complicated, and age would not be a problem in learning, such
material. The problem might be in the willingness of these students to learn about '
marriage relationships. High school in the United States is, for many students, a time of
fun and entertainment. The education that they currently receive is disconnected from
their lives, consisting of subjects like algebra and history, which have little material that
can be put to immediate use., On the other hand, if a marriage course were given, it would
stand out as something particularly useful.
The second source of problems in creating such a course might be in the sexism
that young males pick up' from cultural influences. These attitudes imply that learning how
to make a marriage work is something that girls might be interested in, whereas males
should be more interested in proving themselves to each other at that age. However, with
the proper presentation method, this feature could be defused. At worst, passing such a
course could be made mandatory for graduation.
The next source of problems lies in finding teachers to present the material. This
would require a training program for teachers who would have to present the subject
Would "Marriage" be a course that home economics teachers add to their repertoire? It is
unlikely that someone who teaches biology or mathematics would opt for it. Yet this
course can have a much greater impact on the average student's life than anything in
biology or math. Even if a new teacher had to be hired, the school would be much better
off doing the hiring rather than ignoring their students' needs.
Another problem is the overload of teaching already in high schools. Our schools
are open for a much shorter fraction of the year than schools in other parts of the world,
and the school day is likewise abbreviated. If that schedule remains, something would
have to be displaced, and there is not likely to be any subject that could be agreed upon as
superfluous. However, if the United States ever decided to move toward more substantial
education, "Marriage" might be the first additional offering, based on its importance for
society.
Another problem in finding teachers for this course is its practicality. It relates to
everyone's life, including teachers' lives. In order to have the most impact, it might be best
to find teachers with successful marriages to teach it. It some schools, this could be
difficult.
The last source of problems lies in preparing the materials. The United States has
such a diversity of opinions about everything social that it might be hard to establish a
curriculum with enough substance in it to provide real guidelines for students. Clearly
there are answers as to how to maintain a marriage; we have enormous empirical evidence
of successful marriages. The material might not be acceptable to the parents and
taxpayers who support our high schools. However, this is not obvious. Almost everyone
now understands the prevalence of divorce and the destruction it causes. Perhaps they
could also agree on how to put together a course for the first half of high school that
explains these guidelines.
 Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 87

If an education program such as the one described here is not implemented, we

simply have nothing to expect but an ever worsening social structure as more and more
children of broken marriages grow up and take their place in society, unequipped to create
a stable marriage of their own. Even more social costs will be heaped upon a society
already pushed to its limits by the existing costs of divorce: traumatized children, ruined or
interrupted careers, financial devastation. Yet the expense of developing such a course is
minimal. Why not do it? What we have now, no education, is clearly bad education in
one of the most critical aspects of future life.
In the absence of such a course, each student is left to his own devices to educate
himself on how to form a successful marriage. However, before any man takes such a
momentous step, he should spend many, many hours seeking whatever guidance he can on
how to do marriage well. Many books of marriage advice have been written by experts
and amateurs. Reading a few should be the most minimal preparation a person should
undertake.
Page 88· Vet:SionDare:.May29, 1994 ;
• <~ ~ •• { ••• ,~, '~""~"4 •. ~ ,"". .

J :.,.;' .~'
KiDDS Notes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 89

Humane Divorce

There is no intrinsic reason why divorce has to be the nightmare it is now for
parents and children. The exploitation of divorce as a cash cow for the legal profession
does not have to continue if the citizens of the United States don 't want it to.

When two parents decide that they have had enough and that they must part, they
have made a very sad decision. It matters little what the reasons are or where the blame
belongs; the children of that marriage are going to have to undergo a trauma, a change, a
re-orientation. The parents need to be helped through the changes that occur, as they can
not easily foresee the effects it will have on their children or how to mitigate them. They
may need direction on how to resume single lives. What they do not need is to fall afoul
of a group of people who make their living from participating in the battling that the two
might slip into. Nor do they need to have their familial arrangements decided by people
with prejudice in the place where clear thinking should be. .
A real divorce situation should be more like a hospital setting, in that the people
involved with the breakup are all likely to be suffering in one way or another. Usually
one, the instigator, is feeling better because he or she is free from the conditions that drove
him or her to seek divorce. However it is often the case that the liberty gained is at the
cost of much else. The entire family may need help.
Instead of a sensitive counselor being assigned to each person in the family, the
absolute worst kind of people for this job, the ultimate in insensitive professionals,
lawyers, becomes the one most involved. It is a travesty of legislation that divorce is
handled in the United States like the breaking of a contract or the commission of a crime.
Even having the divorcing couple appear in a courtroom, which most people associate
with criminal justice, is a basic mistake.
How can two people who have differences be helped to reduce them, for their own
sake and certainly for the sake of their children? Certainly not by forcing them to hire
professionals who profit from every conflict that has to be legally dealt with. If a mediator
was hired whose pay was proportional to the amount of conflict that was amicably
resolved, divorce would not be the legendary battleground that it is in the United States.
It would be an easier road for almost everyone to follow.
Making divorce easier to get through does not mean that divorce would become
even more common than it is today. People divorce because they cannot get along with
each other, not because options are open to them. Even if it did have that effect, it should
still be state policy that people who want to be divorced should not be prevented from
doing so by the hardships imposed on them by the justice system.
Divorce should also not be handled by people who do not know what they are
doing. Lawyers are not experts on children. Custody decisions should be based on what
is known about children, how they grow up, what they need, and what society expects of
them when they do grow up. It should not be controlled by political decisions handed
down by politicians who need to curry favor with groups completely insensitive to the
needs of children, and only are concerned with righting the perceived wrongs that they
Page 90 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDS Notes

believe women have suffered. To make matters worse, at least 50% of the politicians
involved in writing laws are lawyers and many of the rest are lawyers at heart. Sensitivity
to human problems is not what you expect to find in a group like this. Expediency is.
It is probably too much to hope that any improvements in the fate of children of
divorce will be made by a political system that runs on the votes of adults and has no
representation whatsoever for children. There is no children's advocate in politics, despite
the fact that there are advocates for almost every other group. There are groups who use
children as a phony front for their own personal gain, in fact, many of them.
Environmentalists want their laws passed so they proclaim that the Earth should be saved
for the children. Educators want more money for their salaries so they trumpet the needs
of the children for education. Social workers do the same. Yet these lobbies work not for
children in general, but for the specific solution to a specific problem that will benefit the
group organizing the lobbying.
It is highly unlikely, or better, virtually incredible to think that the system oflaws
that enrich so many contributors, i.e., legal firms, to political campaigns with the booty
from destroyed families will disappear overnight. It is incredible to think that the system
will ever disappear. Yet, just perhaps, if the people of the United States became aware of
the damage that divorce does to our country, they would rise up and demand an end to
this swamp of venality. But until that fanciful future turns up, and divorce becomes a
healing experience rather than a bloodletting, fathers will have to go on struggling as best
they can in their individual situations, gradually spreading the word that life does not have
to be like this.
In a fantasy world where child-oriented law was the rule, when people decided
they wanted a divorce and went to the official mediator's office that handled this, they
would be faced with making sure that what they were doing was the best solution to their
problems. They would have to talk to each other to do this. Wouldn't it be a happier
world if half of the people who decided on divorce realized, after they learned to
communicate with each other in the mediators' offices, that some simple changes could
save their marriage and protect their children? Wouldn't it be wonderful if the pain that
one or both felt couldn't be transformed into a courtroom contest where only lawyers gain.
Wouldn't it be better ifboth parties of divorces that had to happen each realized who was
at fault, including themselves, and did not simply take the easy route of blaming the other,
and that they then took that responsibility seriously. Could both parties come out of the
divorce process with their outlook and appreciation for life improved instead of using it to
degrade the other. Could they each learn to reappreciate the good qualities of the other
person so that they could at least do something good for the children jointly. Could both
parties be fairly and carefully evaluated to decide who should have custody of the children
with no preconceived notions on the part of the decision-maker being dominant. Could
most issues be settled by agreement rather than by fiat.
A world like this would not be possible in the United States today. Today,
marriage is regarded as a money-making proposition by some women, a way to avoid
work and work's stresses. With that as a rule for marriage, the rules for divorce have to
center around finances. If marriage became what it was a hundred years ago for most
people, a partnership where each would contribute, it could be ended easier. If the laws of
marriage did not provide a means for self-enrichment, or even if every youth was informed
KiDDS Notes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 91

of what lay in store for them when they started marriage, marriage could end with no
financial contests, and most of the rancor that these battles bring would disappear.
Children would no longer be regarded as a means of siphoning income from one earner to
another. They could be regarded as they should be, as the most important aspect of
marriage and the most important people in the divorce. If the chief mediator of the
divorce process was the children's advocate, not the parents', divorce would become
healthier and safer, not just for the children, but also for the parents. If fathers were
appreciated for, and appreciated themselves for the role models and good examples they
provided their children, and they were helped to assume custody rather than strongly and
repeatedly discouraged from seeking it, then we would have a balanced decision being
made that would be more readily accepted by both parties, and less need for continuing
contests over custody and visitation. If parents were helped to see that sometimes the
behavior that they followed hurt their children, and if they could come to appreciate that
children rather than possessions or entertainment are more important in life, divorce might
almost disappear.
A very famous panel for the venerable Pogo cartoon had the line, "We have found
the problem and it is us." Divorce is a reflection of all the other problems that beset
America. Many of them are driven by a general lack of education about what matters' ,
most in life, the family, relationships, goal-setting, character. While we may be falling far
behind other nations in our teaching of mathematics and science, we are already well into
the abyss in our teaching oflife skills. It will be a very long road from the present world
to one in which our current state of affairs in divorce is resolved. Until then, fathers will
simply have to keep fighting the system.
Page 92 Version Date: May 29, \994 KiDDS Notes
KIDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 93

Before Divorce
Page.94 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 95

The Divorce Process

There are four stages to the court processes for a divorce. They are explained
here, along with the places where bias can be introduced. Simplicity covered over by
lots of formal rules describes the process.

The procedures that happen in a divorce are relatively simple to outline. Divorce
is patterned after most adversariallegal procedures such as criminal trials. There is a first
stage in which the parties, the husband and wife, are brought under the jurisdiction of a
particular court by the filing of a divorce suit by one of them. Secondly, there is an initial
hearing or set of hearings in which temporary arrangements are made pending the
completion of the divorce. Thirdfy, there is a discovery phase in which each side collects
whatever information it needs or wants. Lastly, there is a trial in which a more permanent
disposition of custody, property and income is made.
The first stage involves filling out a form and delivering a copy to the court and
having an uninvolved person give it to the other spouse, which is called service. Typically
a phone call to the court by the lawyer for the party starting the divorce sets up a time for
the initial hearing and the form is used to ensure that the other spouse hears about it with
enough time to prepare. The court takes little cognizance of the fact that being served
with a divorce notice is a tremendous psychological shock, likely to put many recipients
into a state of confusion. Immediately after receiving the notice, the second party is
supposed to find a lawyer, determine what they want out of the divorce, what claims they
will make against the other party, how they want the temporary orders to be written and
more. Of course, it is likely thatthey spend most of this time wondering what went wrong _
in the marriage, is it too late to make amends, is the spouse serious, and other more
immediate questions. Nevertheless, the court clock ticks on. If the deadline is too soon
for the second party, the court sometimes will allow a delay in the hearing, although this is
not guaranteed. Some judges figure everybody is tough-minded enough to completely
switch their thinking from being the life-long partner of their spouse to being their
adversary in court in a matter of a few weeks and still get their act together fast enough to
get a fair hearing. Most often, these delays are only given for the purpose of finding a
suitable lawyer, and then the lawyer is supposed to do everything on time for the
rescheduled hearing.
The second stage is usually a hearing, just few minutes long, in front of the judge
in which temporary orders are given. Prior to that a custody evaluation is conducted by
an associate of the court, some specialist in child custody. At least in some parts of
California, the decision of that evaluation is usually written up and provided to the court
and to both spouses before the hearing, but often this means only minutes or hours before
the hearing. The report does not give much, if anything, by way of reasons for the
decision; the evaluator thus prevents any real preparation for a party to contest their
decision except by cross-examination in court. Because of the haste in which the
temporary hearing is scheduled, and the secrecy of the motivation for the evaluation, this
 Page 96 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDS Notes,

temporary order hearing is one of the most common places in which bigotry and prejudice
strike out at a father."
A practiced lawyer who seriously works to obtain custody for a father can operate
within the system in two ways. He can prepare his client for a good presentation before
the evaluator and 'talk to the evaluator, on the telephone or in person, himself. Some
courts allow the lawyer to attend the interviews that the evaluator has with their client.
An experienced divorce lawyer knows the evaluators of the court, and, if one is assigned.
who is not totally prejudiced in favor of maternal custody, he can make arguments that
may have worked before with that evaluator. There is very little research done by the
evaluator in determining his or her decision. It is almost a charade. Seeing how little is ,'..
done and how few considerations are involved should be enough to convince anyone
skeptical of the biases in custody evaluations that there is no way that a competent
decision can be made by the evaluator at this point. Yet the temporary orders are most
often: used "as justifications for the permanent orders on the grounds that .the children
should not be subjected to further changes in their living arrangements.
The second way that a lawyer can affect the temporary custody decision is in
court, when the judge gets ready to order that the evaluator's recommendation be '
. followed. The lawyer can question the evaluator about his or her background, the reasons
for the evaluation, the amount of investigation that went on and so on. New judges might
actually listen to this, although there are few instances in which this rigmarole actually
accomplishes anything. More usually, judges have heard all this before and they know that
the evaluator is too busy to do a good job and they just rubber-stamp the recommendation
with the statement that this can all be redone at the trial, when more data is available. Of
course, it isn't. The stability argument prevents that.
The temporary hearing decides on the living conditions of the spouses, in that one
of them, almost invariably the husband who is denied custody, is ordered out of the house.
This is one more means that the bigots of the divorce system use to deny the father any
possibility of custody. The house represents a source of that mystical "stability" that is
used to clobber the father. In other words, the temporary orders are used to prepare the
way for a permanent decision. In this one-two punch system, the father is told that the
first hearing is just temporary and not to get too exercised over it. This is a lie. Actually
it is critical and determines the later decision in very many cases. The court can use the
excuse that these orders are only temporary to avoid having to make a fair evaluation of
custody at the outset and simply follow their prejudices, But the second punch is being
prepared at that time.
The same one-two punch system is used for financial awards. The division of
property does not take place at the initial hearing, but a division of income does. The
property is frozen in place until the trial; both parties are ordered not to dispose of
anything. Each party is required to fill out one or more forms describing their income to
the court that then uses that data to make its awards. Tax returns may also be used as a
source of information. Income is divided according to the ostensible needs of the family.
The custodial wife and children get what they need to maintain their lifestyle at something
near to their original lifestyle, if at all possible. This helps maintain the "stability" of the
children, and ensure that their welfare is taken care of first, or so goes the excuse that the
system uses for financially destroying the father's means of survival.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 97

In california, the current level of awards is almost unbelievable. A middle-class

father can be reduced to living in a car ifhe meets the payment schedule ordered by some
courts. Ifhe chooses not to voluntarily pay, his salary is garnished, which means that the
payments the court orders are taken from his pay before he receives it.
The next phase of the divorce scheme is called discovery. In this part, both sides
are supposed to inform the other side of everything they own so that it can be divided up
according to the rules of the court. All sources of income are to be reported as well. If
one or both of the parties have assets that are complicated, such as pensions, annuities,
stocks or bonds, or business interests, the side hoping to get a piece of them can request
data via the subpoena process from the sources or holders of information. For example, if
a man has a pension from his employer, his soon-to-be-ex spouse's lawyer can request all
the financial details of it from the employer, who is bound by law to provide the
information. Once that information is in hand, the side receiving the information, and
possibly the other side, can obtain evaluations of the worth of the asset from experts. This
data will then be presented to the court so that a division can be made.
Besides the subpoena process, there are two other means that are used to obtain
information. One is called the interrogatory. This is simply a long list of questions that
one spouse's lawyer gives the other one. The law states that they have to be answered,
usually Within 30 days. The other means is called deposition, which means that someone
is asked questions in front ofa court-approved stenographer. The record of the
stenographer is then available to the court. The questions in both these processes have to
be answered ''under penalty of perjury", which means that lying is considered a crime.
_Fortunately, there are virtually never any penalties assessed for such lying in divorce court.
The last stage of court is the trial, in which every controversy that has not been
settled before trial is supposed to be wrapped up. Each side submits a settlement
statement, listing which issues have are agreed upon by both parties, and a trial brief
which is a statement of what they claim about the facts and what they are asking for.
There may be questioning of witnesses at the trial, together with cross-examination. For
example, if a psychological evaluator was called in to make a thorough study of possible
custody arrangements, he or she might appear at the trial to testify. Each side must inform
the other as to which witnesses will be called so that there can be some semblance of
preparation for the cross-examination. Any experts who evaluated the value of
complicated assets can be brought in to testify and be cross-examined. The two parties
have to be there, and they can also be witnesses. The discovered data is presented, and
both sides can give little speeches at the end summing up what it is they think: they
showed. Finally, the judge turns off the proceeding. He is then required to make a
decision, in writing, within a set period. This is 60 days in California. Often, in simple
cases, all or part of the decision is given immediately after the parties wrap up their
presentations.
Besides these four stages, more steps can be introduced. If the temporary orders
are unacceptable by one of the parties, they can go back to court to ask that they be
changed. If one side does not comply with the processes of discovery, the other side can
go back to court to have the judge set a deadline for compliance. If there is any claim of
violence or claim of threat of violence, the side that makes the claim can go back and
have the judge issue a temporary restraining order telling the other party to knock it off
Page 98 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

and stay away from the party making the claim.e'Ihenthere is a hearing in which the
temporary restraining order is made into a more permanent one, called an injunction. -At
the hearing the party who is accused can do whatever he or she wants to defend himself or
herself against the accusation.
The trial itself can be broken into parts and done on different days. One of the
more common breakouts is that of the "status" of the parties. Instead of waiting until the
trial to be officially divorced, which can take months or years of waiting, one or both can
ask for a "bifurcated trial", to deal with their status as married or divorced. In such a trial,
one of the parties recites some phrases stating that they indeed want to be divorced, and it
is automatically granted, at least in California and other states where no-fault divorce is ...
possible without penalties. Other matters can be dealt with at bifurcated trials as well.
One example is the division of a business that has to be kept running. Another might be
the sales of some rssets needed for some reason.
The. processes of divorce are certainly not complicated ill and of themselves,
although they are lusually encumbered with baggage that the legal system uses to
discourage people from appreciating its simplicity. Such baggage includes a collection of
Latin or otherwise obscure terminology, fixed rules on transmission of information and on
providing notice to the other party about what is going on, funny clothes the judge wears,
funny furniture in the court, rules about what can be said and what cannot be said in court,
rules about who gets to talk first and so on, rules about recording information, rules about
other aspects of the process. By making a simple thing complicated, the basic facts of bias
and prejudice are obscured from public view. It provides a standard excuse to the poor
victims of such discrimination: "That's how the system works." By appearing to be too
complicated for an ordinary individual to comprehend, complaints about it, in the media or
otherwise, are forestalled and laymen can be made to appear uninformed. The public can
be made to feel that the system is fair because it is complicated, when in fact the
complexities that are introduced are the means by which biases can be imposed.
To cure such a system, it is first necessary that all the obscuration be stripped away
from public view. One of the purposes of this writing is to do that. With enough public
knowledge, corruption will have to find other places in which to hide, and fathers may find
themselves getting a better deal than with the information fog generated by the current
system.
KiDDS Notes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 99

Separation Shock

If a man is unprepared for the possibility that his marriage might suddenly fall
apart, he may go into shock when served with divorce papers. He needs to think about
it and to keep in contact with others who have gone through it.

Having a stranger show up at your door and surprise you with court papers
announcing that your wife was divorcing you can be a devastating shock. It can put some
men into an emotional state where they are unable to think clearly and unable to deal with
the situation in any successful way. It can allow the wife to obtain all the initial advantage
in the divorce process.
Even if there has been quarreling in the marriage, or if finances have gone sour, or
some other unpleasantness has occurred, many men do not accept the possibility that their
marriage could end at any time. They may be aware that almost half of all marriages do,
they may have friends upon friends who have divorced, and they may have heard threats
from their wife. But sometimes it takes court papers to register with them, and to break
through the false optimism that things will work out.
False optimism is the key that keeps such fellows from appreciating that their
marriage is almost dead prior to being served with court papers. Optimism takes two
forms. One comes from the feeling that they are such good mates that divorce could
never strike them, or that they simply are too lucky or their wife too fearful or dependent,
or something else exists that would prevent the divorce option from ever hitting them.
This is false optimism, based on delusions that are invalid. There is also real optimism that
recognizes existing problems as potentially leading to divorce and motivates a man to
work hard to solve them. Real optimism does not set up someone for an emotional shock
if divorce actually commences. False optimism does. It is a viewpoint that shatters into a
thousand pieces and leaves the man with nothing to hold on to.
When the divorce process starts, an unprepared man has to go through a whole
series of changes. More than likely, he had developed a comfortable routine to his life,
which was based on his relationship with his wife. Instead of coming home to a pleasant
situation, or at least a known situation, he now comes home to a completely different
atmosphere. Ifhe has been thrust out of the home, or, in the confusion of the divorce
startup, has voluntarily left, he comes from work back to strange physical surroundings.
His children are no longer there to meet him. Perhaps his wife has left the area with them
All the home-based habits that he became used to are no longer there. This part of the
process is by itself enough to cause depression or melancholy. The human mind does not
take to major changes well. It gives us the ability to form habits and expectations that
help us get through our daily lives easily and efficiently. When so many factors change at
once, everything has to be rethought out consciously. The man has to think about what to
do for meals, as family meals are no longer there. He has to think about where to live, and
about the household chores that he himself didn't do before. He has to think about
scheduling time with his children instead of them just being there when he got home. The
Page 100 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDS Notes

physical comforts of marriage are gone. So many little details of life all get jerked around
at once that the mind simply gets tired, and mental fatigue brings depression.
The psychological setting also is jarred out of its foundation. The man may have
been used to being consulted on decisions that his wife made, or even having a veto over
many of them. He may have had his self-confidence based on the fact that he was the
decisive one in the marriage; now that is clearly shown to be false. He may have been
proud of the role in the marriage that he played, and now his wife has just shown him that
his role is superfluous and she can get along without him. The response to having the
bases for one's self-confidence and pride blown away is almost always deeply emotional.
It might result in anger, as he seeks another means for exerting his control. It might be
withdrawal, as he breaks off contact, not just with his ex-wife, but with everyone not
absolutely necessary to be dealt with, as the loss of self-confidence and pride in oneself
can turn into shame and a feeling of disgrace. His plans for the future, of buying a new
house, of having another child, of seeing his current children in college or in a career, of
having enough money for a great vacation with his wife, or any of a number of aspirations,
have just been thrown on the trash heap. When one's plans and hopes are suddenly erased,
a person doesn't have an immediate response, other than feelings of sadness and loss.
In short, marriage is such a major part of the foundations oflife's habits, plans;'
pride, and other facets, that if it collapses abruptly, a severe emotional response has to
happen. Unfortunately for men who have this happen to them, the divorce process does
not always allow them a month or two or three to get themselves together and figure out
what to do next. It grinds onward immediately, demanding that they make decisions that
may prove to be critical to their own success in the divorce and to their children's future.
Having to replan one's entire life in a short time means that the plans are often haphazard
and ill-conceived. Contrast that with the plans of a wife who has been organizing herself
for the divorce for a long time, has contacted one or more lawyers to get ready, and has
generally figured out what to do to get the most out of the initial stages when her husband
is confused and emotionally wracked by the tremendous changes his life is undergoing.
There are two remedies to this; one to be taken before the divorce hits, and one
after. The first is to always expect that divorce could occur, even during a good part of
the marriage. A wife can have hidden plans, hidden feelings, a hidden part of her life, and
divorce can simply erupt without notice, no matter how self-confident the husband feels.
This means that every man in a relationship should give some time to thinking out what
would happen and how he would respond if it suddenly changed, just as he should have
some basic plan for what he would do if his wife had a fatal illness or a fatal accident.
Thinking about it does not mean that the shock will not occur, but it does mean that it
should be less. It may also lead to him not basing so much of his self-confidence on what
a masterful role he plays in the marriage and to him trying to be more perceptive about
himself. This should help the emotional response that inevitably comes to be dealt with
more easily and be more controlled and tolerable.
The second remedy is to consult previous victims immediately after being served
with divorce papers. A frequent response of married men is to quietly break contact with
the victim of divorce when the process starts. Instead, a special effort should be made by
each man who knows him to keep in contact. Sometimes even previously divorced men
react this way to the divorce of a colleague. If the desire to not get involved is controlled.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 101

and contact is maintained by married men, their acts of consideration will be repaid if their
turn to be served with divorce papers comes up. They may find that the divorced fathers
they kept contact with have a good idea about what goes on and what to expect. They
may be able to refer him to other friends who can provide even more consulting on what
he needs to do. He might also get a lead on finding a group of divorced fathers if one is in
the area he lives in. There he has some resources to use to get his head together faster and
to keep himself from getting chewed up in the initial divorce hearings. This will be a
major advantage for his children as well as himself
Page 102· Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
KiDDS Notes - Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 103

When to Run and When'to Hide

A father considering taking his children elsewhere because of the divorce prejudice
facing him has to think carefully and come up with a workable plan. The
Underground Railroad did work, however, and men shouldn't neglect this option.

There is an extreme solution that some individual fathers have tried in face of the
disreputable prejudice that permeates our divorce courts. They run away with their
children. Some go all the way and hide, others take up residence in a place where their
chances at custody might be better.
Until 1977; California used to be a favorite destination for the "better chance"
traveler. The former "tawsallowed anyone in the state to file for divorce and seek custody,
and then, unbelievable now, the feeling was that California courts were more likely to give
a father custody of his dear children than the older, less progressive states in the East.
California then had a tradition, perhaps unearned, of looking at customs in a less
prejudiced and more open-minded way. A father who could make a good case for
custody might just pack up his kids and his belongings and come to California to make a
new start. The child's mother could file for divorce and custody back wherever it was she
was left, but with children as with property, possession was nine-tenths ofthe law. The
jurisdiction of California courts covered children located in California, and unless they
were transported back to the original state, they stayed under California law and perhaps,
if they were lucky, got to be reared by their fathers.
Since 1977, the states have worked to coordinate their divorce jurisdictions.
California no longer allows children to fall within its jurisdiction when a parent arrives
with them from out-of-state. Sometimes, the first-to-file parent establishes jurisdiction,
and that cannot be changed by one parent moving. Sometimes, if a parent can be shown
to have left a state for the sole purpose of denying it jurisdiction over children with a
history of living there, California may not take up jurisdiction except to order the children
returned to their original state. Furthermore, California is by no means free from maternal
custody prejudice. In fact, California has sunk into that swamp up to its toupee.
That does not mean that a father who does not have unpullable roots in a state
shouldn't be deterred from seeking a place to go where the slime of bigotry doesn't stink as
badly. Since each state has its own laws, and each state has its own customs for granting
fathers custody, it would pay a potentially mobile father to pay attention to the option to
slip into a favorable court. In order to do this, he should make contact with fathers in any
area he could conceive of going to, and see what his chances might be. Both the law and
custom need to be checked.
If a father finds an area where he might be treated as a human being in divorce
court, and his children's best interests would actually be looked at for the purpose of
determining custody, and he decides to go there, there a number of tactical decisions he
has to make. One is determined by the timing of the move. How long does he need to be
in the new location before he can file for divorce? If he is absent and unaccounted for to
the ex-wife, so that she cannot file divorce papers on him, can he establish himself as the
Page 104 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDS Notes

first to file by starting his filing first or evensecond, and by then completing his filing first
by doing service of these papers on his wife before she serves him? Sometimes first to
serve determines jurisdiction. How much of his personal possessions can he take with
him, assuming he has to leave in a hurry to avoid his spouse's retribution? Should he
inform his soon-to-be ex-wife of his actions soon after starting, perhaps leaving out crucial
information such as his location, in order to reassure her of the safety of the children?
Should he attempt to establish employment before he moves? Can he find a friend or ally,
perhaps from a fathers' rights organization, who can help him with some logistics?
The second option is the old one used by victims of prejudice everywhere:
disappear and become a new person. To do this with children is a radical idea, and
requires an extreme amount of effort and' self-discipline. Older children, teenagers and
perhaps those as old as ten or eleven, may simply not comply with the father's request for
silence, and would be suspicious if their name was changed. Very young children, under
three, will not understand what is happening and will simply go along with whatever their.
father proposes. Children between these age groups are questionable .. Some are more
accepting; others less. Some are closely tied to their father; others are not. With some,
their father can do anything he likes because of the tremendous love they have for each
other. In other cases, the relationship is not so close.
The question of crime is moot here, as it appears to be no crime for a father to take
his children wherever he wishes, as it is also no crime for the mother to do the same.
However, since the question of legality is crucially important for any action like this, a
father should find out exactly what limitations the law in his state might impose on him.
Of course, if custody orders have already been given, if he violates them he runs the risk of
a criminal charge being filed against him.
Running and hiding is not something that a father with professional credentials can
easily do ifhe plans to make use of them in a new location. A father, for example a
doctor, who moves to a new location and expects to remain unknown to his wife, might
expect that the use of his credentials would lead to a trail that any bumbling private
investigator could follow. However, this is something that each individual must examine.
Any references that a mobile father uses from his old career contacts might result in a trail
to his new location.
Other means of employment, skilled and unskilled, do not often require references
or background checks. Employers are happy to have them, but often do not waste time
finding out whether their stated history is valid or not. Or they are willing to be content
with false information if the father is an exemplary worker. Men with such luck have only
to think of how to evade detection through physical means, such as airline tickets, car
license records, or other evidence that a private investigator could obtain.
The option to leave the country might cross a father's mind as he contemplates a
life knowing his children might wind up in the hands of an incompetent parent or worse.
Such a move requires more planning than an interstate move. Embassies have information
sections that give information on the legal requirements for staying for a long period in
their country, as well as the requirements for being allowed to work there. It would be
even more important to establish contacts in the destination country for any father seeking
to take refuge there. .
KiDDS Notes· Page 105

One other option, only for well-off fathers, is to leave the working world and
travel for a period of time, while educating his children himself. Such extreme solutions to
the custody prejudice problem would be available only to very few men, ones who had the
resources to remain unemployed for a long time, and who could take on the job of being a
tutor as well as a travel guide. Retired fathers might take this option, if they could arrange
for pension and social security payments to be made without revealing their destination.
Any of these solutions, interstate or overseas hiding or simply traveling, is likely to
be defeated if the spouse left behind undertakes a search and the mobile father does not
take proper precautions. Any father in the process of doing his own "Underground
Railroad", needs to find out how private investigators operate and what clues they use.
One source of such information is Lee Lapin's book, "How to Get Anything on Anybody".
It is not an insuperable problem to disappear, provided that good planning is done.
However, it entails considerable sacrifice for many men, and they have to weigh if it is
worth it to them. Knowing beforehand what divorce might mean to them is necessary for
them to make a good evaluation. If their divorce chances mean that Judge Inquisitor is
sure to take away half of their income, their house, their children, their business, their car,
and any other part of their lives, they need to compare that with what they could achieve
on the lam. It is a wretched world when a father has to run to exercise his natural rights,
but we don't get to choose the world we are born in. And certainly most of the escaped
slaves who used the pre-Civil War era Underground Railroad considered themselves lucky
to have done so. Who knows? Perhaps living overseas would be fun and just the
challenge a man needs to fire up his enthusiasm and motivation.
Page 106 Version!?ate:May29.1994 KiDDSNotes
-r _./
 ' .....
KIDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 107

Beginning Divorce
Page 108. - Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDS Notes .
.• J'" .
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 109

Cooperative Parenting

Wouldn't it be nice to bypass all the legal hassles that divorce entails and just
figure out how to live your lives apart and how to care for your children? If your ex is
an agreeable person, this may make divorced life pleasant.

Just because you are going to divorce someone, it doesn't mean you have to hate
them as well. In fact, if you can remember why you married that person, it may seem that
there are quite a number of good features in your almost-ex-spouse. If you and your ex-
spouse both feel the same way about each other, that is, except for a few factors that make
you incompatible with each other, you are both pretty good people, then you can make
divorce almost a pleasant experience. You can't have to be in love, but it would be best to
be in "like". With high opinions of each other and a history of caring about the other's .life,
you can expect to cooperate in rearing your children, and maybe have the best of both
worlds, the single one and the married one. I

In cooperative parenting, the whole legal snarl of custody and visitation aren't
worth mentioning. If you want to get divorced without going through the whole
rigmarole of trial and fixing all the details of settlements, having liability for support
imposed and so on, you can, at least in California, get what is called a bifurcated trial on
status. This is a five minute hearing in which you get pronounced single again.
Supposedly, you are supposed to come back for a trial about custody and property and
everything else. If you don't, nobody is going to come after you. The courts are too busy.
You can just settle everything yourselves, in your own way and at your own pace. Of
course, you have to go through the temporary order stage of divorce proceedings in order
to be put on the calendar for change of status. No property questions come up in the
temporary order phase, so you can do that later whenever you choose. There is some
boilerplate order given that nobody should sell anything, but if you both sell something
together later when you choose to, there isn't anybody left to object or complain about it.
However, custody and visitation and temporary child and spousal support orders
are given at that hearing. To get rid of this restriction on your lives, you can call for joint
custody and simply team up on the custody evaluator if he or she tries to disagree with
you. You can prepare and sign a stipulation stating that custody will be joint physical and
legal, with the amount of contact time set at whatever fraction results in no child support
award.
This is not too tricky to figure out. If the state determines the child support
contribution of the two parents on the basis of gross income and the allocation of child
support on the basis of contact hours, you simply declare that custody will be proportional
to gross income. Then there will be no net child support payable, and the couple is free to
do whatever they want without any legal liabilities.hanging over their heads, and especially
no legal hassles. Some states have more complicated rules, and some states have even
developed computer programs to calculate child support levels. The one in California that
judges use is called DissoMaster. If you have access to this program, you can use it to
pick the level of contact time that results in zero net payable. You simply enter the
Page 110 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

numbers for income, deductions, and so on into the program that it wants and then keep
changing the contact hours numbers until zero output results. Spousal support can be
simply stipulated to be zero.
Even with divorce's biggest hassle, support, taken out of the hands of the legal
establishment and put into the parents' hands, big questions still come up .. Who should
actually have the children when the parents live in two separate places? If you like formal
rules, you can sit down and figure out something. Start wirh a 50-50 division, or a
weekday-weekend split. Then try it for a few months, and if you don't like it, twiddle
some of the times. If you want to, change it every week. In cooperative parenting, you
simply -- cooperate --. Alternately, you could just agree to try some plan on a day to day
basis until you get a pattern worked out that you both can live with.
Cooperative parenting takes two intelligent people who have the capability of
discussing everything between themselves calmly, of listening and appreciating the other
.person's opinions and feelings, and of being willing to compromise constantly. It doesn't
take any particular type of education or any particular type of occupation. It takes good
personal qualities. A couple whose married life and whose life outside the marriage has
been characterized by cooperation and reasonableness is probably ready to behave the
same way after divorce. After all, people don't change personalities very easily, although
some people have little hidden quirks that can spring out in unusual situations.
For example, cooperative parents can sit down and figure out what school is the
best for their children, without one trying to dominate the other one, without one feeling
that the. other person is trying to dominate them, without either feeling insulted if criticism
is given, without either having all those emotions, anger, hostility, hatred or sheer
meanness, gum up the rational process of trying to rear children. How nice, how simple,
how pleasant to call up your ex-spouse and explain you have to go out of town, and could
you switch the time you take the children, fully expecting that some arrangement will be
easy to work out.
Neither party in a cooperative parenting arrangement feels that the other one has
got the best of the other in the division of property. They sat down and split it up. Some
of the property got sold because neither really wanted it. The rest went to whoever
wanted it the most, and neither wanted anything so badly that they were willing to argue
for it; both realized that cooperation was the most valuable possession they could have for
the rest of their lives, and a material possession or two wasn't that important. Sometimes
a little extra sacrifice on one party's part is all it takes to make everything work out quickly
and trouble-free.
In cooperative parenting, neither party feels that the other one isn't doing their part
to support the children. Each one contributes quite a bit to the needs of their children, and
they don't harp on how much they give as if it were a horrible imposition to have to pay
for their children's expenses. In fact, when an unexpected bill comes up related to the
children, they both tend to pay more than half of it if they get it first. Both parents feel
proud to do what they can for their children. And neither would ever feel that they
wanted to depend on the other for their own support. Pride and self-esteem playa large
role in making cooperative parenting possible. The cooperators both feel that they want
to be responsible for themselves, and they are proud of it, and proud of the fact that they
married another person who was as responsible as themselves.
KiDOSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 111

When it comes to taxes, any arrangement is possible. Perhaps the one who gets ..
the most out of the children's deductions takes it, and then splits the savings with the
other. For health care, the one with the better plan could take the children, and the other
contributes to the out-of-pocket costs. Neither tries to dodge any expenses like this, and
the only disagreements come from the parents' mutual desire to see that the medical,
dental and vision care are. the best that they can afford.
When one cooperator has difficulties at work, or is out of work, the other picks up
the slack as best as possible, and never tries to force the unemployed one to go deeper into
debt to make up some ratio of costs. When one wants to get remarried, the other one
helps the children adjust to the family situation. When one wants to move, the other might
help in the move and certainly helps in arranging the children's affairs at the new location.
In short, whatever has to be done, is done as if two good friends were arranging
for it. Cooperative parenting is an ideal to be attempted for reasonable people who split
up. No two individuals can be perfectly in agreement one hundred percent of the time, but·
it is possible to come close. And the children in such an arrangement have almost nothing
of the hassle and harassment that comes from vindictive parents in contested divorces.
The reward that the parents have for surrendering the possibility of doing the other one in
is to have children that make them proud, children free from the degradation that leads
many children of broken homes into serious social problems. Their financial position is
almost invariably better than it would have been with a controversial divorce, as instead of
concentrating their attention on hurting the other one, they are free to concentrate their
attention on their own lives. They don't constantly have to look over their should to find
out if a hostile ex-spouse is going to come after them for some financial or custodial
change. They have someone nearby to help with child care, so that this is less of a
handicap to them than to most divorced people. They saved so much on legal costs that
this alone probably makes up for the difference in what they could have gotten in a
courtroom struggle. By staying out of this mess, they still are on good terms with each
other. They never have a problem with contact time, and the children are used to seeing
their two parents together discussing their future calmly and quietly. They too learn to
treat others with respect and honesty and grow up to be exemplary citizens who, perhaps,
will be able to find a mate just like their parents.
In cooperative parenting, there is no winner in the divorce contest, and, more
importantly, no loser. There are two winners in the parenting contest, as two people
caring for the same children simply have to be better at it than one of them alone. The
children are winners as well, as their lives do not have to be divided up according to some
mathematical formula, but they can flexibly go from one parent to another. They have a
measure of freedom that even some children in intact families do not have.
There are a few minor hassles that might be encountered in a cooperative parenting
arrangement that ignores the courts and solves everything individually outside of it. One
is in the area of loans. Some mortgage companies, for example, want to see a final
divorce agreement before granting a mortgage as they are concerned that the person
requesting the mortgage might have financial obligations to the other partner, and this
would affect their ability to pay for the mortgage. Typically, a signed statement that the
divorce ended amicably with no support paying should be sufficient. This might take an
Page 112 Version Date: ~Y 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

additional ten minutes time in seeking the mortgage-- not much to lose to gain a life of
cooperation. .
Why aren't there more cooperative parenting arrangements? First of all, there
probably are many, but they are so free of stress and trouble, that the participants don't
mention them all that frequently, unlike the battle-weary victims of court divorces who
seem to never tire to telling their stories. Nobody bothers to writes new stories and
magazine articles about two people getting along fine. Besides, there are different ways of
doing it, so any statistics might be misleading. Besides dropping out of the divorce
process after a bifurcation of status as discussed above, the dropping out may occur earlier
or later. The couple may have only separated, and never bothered to tell any court about
it. Aside from a prohibition on getting remarried and possibly some minor hassles in filling
out forms here and there, the legal establishment can be profoundly ignored and lives lived
out without them. The couple may have actually gone to court, allowed some lawyer to
write down a deal and sat through a trial with all the details filled in, and .then gone out
and ignored it and done whatever they pleased about support, property, custody and so
on. This is a little more chancy, as a person liable for child support stays liable, at least
until his ex signs off on a paper saying it has all been received. This would require another
ten minute delay in return for a life of cooperation.
Secondly, it is hard to go to cooperative parenting once a divorce battle has begun.
The process of competing with an ex-spouse in court seems to snowball so that it just gets
worse and worse until one of the parents, usually the father, is crushed. It only takes one
misconception, one decision to follow a lawyer's advice and get whatever is possible in the
divorce, or one choice to deprive the other one of something important, to start the couple
down the road to a life of misery and non-cooperation in rearing their children. One bad
deed begets another, and that one begets another, and so on, until everything is dragged
into the contest between two people who must get even with the other one. Even the
children become battle pieces. If a "friend" gets to one of the parties before they have a
chance to think about being cooperative and describes how to get the best of the other ex-
spouse, or worse, if that "friend" is a lawyer, the contest may start by a major courtroom
attack that destroys all hope of cooperation for years in the future. This is not to say that
both people should not plan for the worst case, when the other person turns out to be a
monster in disguise. Instead, some very careful thinking needs to be done about whether
the other person is capable of hostility or is likely to be as willing to cooperate after the
split up as they were before. Of course, it would be certifiably insane to think that
someone who has not cooperated in the marriage would suddenly start when divorce gets
going. Certainly doing divorce by surprise is not going to help in setting up a cooperative
parenting arrangement. Moving out without taking much along is, but that is a gamble if
the mover out is a father, as that leaves him very vulnerable to a vicious legal assault. The
absolutely best way to start a cooperative parenting arrangement probably is for the
mother to move out, as it is not as likely that she would lose rights to the house as a man
would in our mother-biased courts.
Thirdly, it is one of the tragedies of America that there are a large number of
people living here who either cannot cooperate successfully or who cannot put any other
interests above their own very immediate desires. A spouse looking for an easy life with a
high-earning spouse is not going to be a party to a cooperative parenting arrangement; to
KIDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 113

the contrary, she is going to be going for enough loot to make her life as easy after the
divorce as possible. A spouse who lives for a career and preens himself on his successes,
rather than involving himself in his children's lives, is not a candidate for cooperation
either; only competition is an understandable modus operandi. These people doom
themselves to lives lacking in the joy that the love of parenting can bring. They trade it for
immediate gains, usually personal gains, and the totally non-useful psychological benefits
of feeling superior. There is no true superiority in taking actions to diminish the lives of
children.
One situation might be worse than a standard divorce in court with all the waste of \
money and time that it entails. It is a half-cooperative divorce. Tragically, it is not .
uncommon for a person who is perfectly capable of being a cooperator is paired up in
marriage with either a leisure-seeker, a career-maniac, or some other type of person who
is incapable of putting the needs of his or her children or of anyone else before his or her
own. In this situation, the .desire of one of the parents is to cooperate, .and the way they
do it is to be reasonable. What happens is that, time after time, they are met with rebuffs
or demands for more sacrifices on their part. It is a hard learning process to come to
realize that one's choice oflife mate is, to be blunt, a real loser, and that there is no way to
do anything about it without a great amount of personal loss and trouble. Unfortunately,
these types of people, leisure-seekers and career-maniacs, in fact anyone else
concentrating their attentions on getting their own benefits and enjoyments to the
detriment of others, would be on the lookout for a naive cooperative person to marry, in
order to make their lives as easy as possible without having to do much for the other
person. Selfish people often do not marry other selfish people. They are too smart for
that. So the cooperator, going through life thinking that most people are like himself or
herself and that they are prone to cooperating as well, gets attached to someone who will
not respond that way. Maybe a little bit of premarital deception is involved as well. There
is no hope of a cooperative parenting arrangement with such a person. The cooperator-
. type has to make that assessment and then go for the protection that these notes describe.
By the time a marriage breaks up, there is usually little doubt in the cooperator's mind that
he or she has made a mistake. Communication has been attempted time and time again,
and nothing seems to have worked. At the inception of divorce, it is not the time to try
once more to reform the ex-spouse; it is time to do everything necessary to save the
children of the marriage from being pawns in the divorce.
Page 114 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29. 1994 Page 115

Mediated Divorce

Doing a divorce without two lawyers arguing, custody evaluators deciding on your
children's future, courts imposing their biases and much money being wasted sounds
like a dream come true. It is, for some people.

Mediation is a substitute for the adversary process of divorce. Only a judge can
actually dissolve a state marriage, but if mediation is used, a couple can make their owri
decisions about everything, and, when it is time to go to court, the judge will be presented
I

with afait accompli. There will be little opportunity for any prejudice to seep into the
decisions at that point.
Mediation is simply a couple sitting.down with a third party and working out how
they want to get divorced. If the couple is sufficiently capable and trusting of each other,
they wouldn't even need a third party - they can just decide all the details of divorce
themselves. All'ofthe decikions that get made in a divorce get made in a mediation; there
is no half-divorce. I

One form ofhalf-dirorce, separation, is possible, as within a mediated settlement

or without mediation, a couple can just decide to stay separate and never do a divorce or
even approach divorce court.: This may help their finances if they wish to file a joint
income tax return, maintairl property in both names, save on joint health care, or use other
I

marriage-related laws, but ,t requires a greater degree of cooperation than most divided
couples can maintain over the long term. They can not remarry via state laws, either,
which is probably an advantage. Nothing stops them from making contractual or
alternative marriages or just living together, except a worry about what the one half of the
couple might do if he or she gets mad enough to go to divorce court and bombard the
other half
In mediated divorce as in all divorce, all the common property gets assigned to an
owner or provision is made for its sale, unless, of course, the couple wants to change their
relationship from married people to business partners, and maintain their relationship on
new grounds. Custody gets determined and so does visitation, although it might be left
more flexible than a court-ordered custody evaluator would be likely to determine.
Support levels get assigned, although there are limits on what a couple can agree to and
still stay within state law. Pensions, businesses, real estate, patents, and all other items
that a couple accrued during the time they were together can get measured out and
partitioned. Even the pets can be split up.
The benefit of mediation is that there are fewer lawyers around. Usually the third
party in a mediated divorce is a lawyer who takes on mediation as a sideline. He knows
the way that court-required divorce forms have to be filled out in order for the state to
bless the couple's last agreement; hopefully he knows how to smooth out differences of
opinion or explain how people usually divide up the silverware. However, the mediator
does not represent either partner and he is ideally an indifferent third party, much like a
facilitator at a group discussion, His role is to keep the discussion amiable, to make sure
Page 116 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

nothing important is forgotten, to check that both parties know what they are doing and to
keep everything legal. -,
Without another lawyer present, he doesn't have anybody to fight with. The
process should go as smoothly as the two divorcing people can manage. This makes
mediation completely different from a negotiated divorce. Most divorces are negotiated
between two lawyers, with one representing each party. They are charged with making
the best possible deal for their client, which may involve hiding information, misleading the
other side, making one-sided deals, or other slick tricks. Most divorces are negotiated
with virtually all points being settled outside of court. These are not as cheap as a
mediated divorce, but are usually much less expensive than divorces in which court battles
occur. There is doubtless less acrimony in a settlement where the parties meet face to face
and discuss what they want to do, as compared to a situation where they each talk to their
lawyers and their lawyers duke it out on the telephone or in person.
With twin benefits of less antagonism and less expense coming with mediation,
. why doesn't everybody get a mediated divorce? First of all, it is not common. Very few
divorces are mediated. One reason is that if a couple is in complete control of their
situation and of their emotions, they might just as well simply fill out the court forms L

themselves and get a divorce with zero lawyers helping or hindering. There exist books at
any large bookstore that give a step-by-step guide to doing one's own uncontested
divorce. These books have templates of all the important forms as well as checklists to
make sure that the couple doesn't forget anything important, like who gets what car. The
mediator really does little more than go over these checklists and prepares the forms. It is
probably less reassuring to have to do a divorce without any human being standing around
telling the couple that they are taking all the necessary actions, but many divorcing couples
do without that reassurance. It may also be that a visit to the mediator is used by a couple
just to verify that everything they are doing is correct; and that the mediator simply serves
as a checkpoint or a consultant to explain something particularly arcane, -such as pension -
accumulations.
Other couples simply do not know how to proceed or what the divorce process
entails; yet they are still on very good terms and have no inclination whatsoever to attack
one another. Here a mediator can simply lead them through the discussions they need to
do in order to figure out what it is they want. If one of them has very strong feelings as to
what she wants, and the other does not, this approach can work. It fails when, either
during the mediation process or before it, the other one notices that all the benefits
accrued during the marriage are going to his partner. If the mediator does not have the
persuasive skills to turn the demanding partner's opinions around and obtain some
semblance of fairness in the division, there is no hope that mediation can work. Successful
mediation takes a commitment to not press too hard on the points in controversy. If this
doesn't happen, it is necessary to realize that they are in, at the least, for a standard
negotiated divorce. If the couple's assets are not very large, and especially if the lawyers'
estimated fees are large compared with their incomes, it might be worth sticking with
mediation and having the insistent one tame her demands down somewhat.
If mediation works and the mediator fills out the forms correctly, there is little that
goes on in court. There are some ritual questions that a judge gets to ask at the time that
the agreement is finalized, such as "Is there any chance of reconciliation?" These
KIDDSNotes Page 117

questions are virtually demanded by law, and the mediator will probably coach one of the
parties on how to answer them. If either of the parties might be eligible for spousal
support, otherwise known as marriage welfare, and they give it up, they can be expected
to be asked to state that they understand this. A few other pro forma questions get asked
and the couple is as good as divorced, provided that the requisite separation time has
passed (six months in California). It might even be a bearable experience.
Page 118 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes
:' '.-'.:; . '
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 119

Preemption in Filing

Filing first has some advantages that depend on where you live, if both spouses sre
still living together, on how many pro-male lawyers there ere, and several other factors.
It can make a tremendous difference or none at all.

Does the spouse who files the starting papers for divorce have any advantage? If a
father sees divorce as inevitable, he has a choice. He can wait until his spouse feels the
same way, decides to get it over with, and files. He can make the move himself.
In some cases, there are advantages, such large advantages that both sides rush to
file their papers in order to beat the other to the punch. One of these advantages is the
choice of venue, which means which court gets to hear the case. This has two facets.
First is geography. If one spouse lives distant from the other, the one who files
first has some priority as to where the divorce will be heard. Having it heard in a local
court clearly saves time, as well as making it easier for the local party to deal with their
lawyer or proceed in pro per. Having to travel to attend court is difficult; it is more
difficult to find a cooperative lawyer for a man, as pro-paternal-custody lawyers are few,
and fewer of them want to travel. If the father adopts the strategy of spending a lot of
time: in court, being local might be the only means whereby he could do it. If the wife
works, and is required to take time off from work to travel every time a court hearing
occurs, it might do a little to tip the lopsided balance a bit back toward the father.
Another aspect of geography is the selection of a judge. If one or both parents are
in an area where there is only one judge who hears divorce proceedings, getting
information on his pro-female biases can be very important. Awcmanwholeaves an area
with a blatant pro-female judge for an area with a tower oflegal impartiality behind the
family law bench does her husband a favor. Let her file, or file in her area yourself, if this
is permitted in your state! In areas such as large cities where there are two or more
judges, more research is necessary to figure out which location might be best to give a
father a fair shot. But it still is something that should be done.
The second aspect is timing. If the mother leaves the area with the children, file
immediately! Most courts do not allow someone who just drives into a new area to file
for custody the day they arrive; they must establish residence requirements first. Get an
order returning your children to their home, because in divorce, as in many other aspects
oflegal conflict, possession is nine-tenths of the law. For a man, it is certainly not nine-
tenths, but something is added. There is a different flavor to the proceedings for two
reasons. A father who has custody already because his wife left the area can make the
stability argument in his behalf This is the argument that custody decision-makers use
most frequently to deprive men of custody; in the case of a nomadic wife it is turned on its
head. The stability argument states that the children should be left in familiar surroundings
during a divorce to help them get through it. A father who successfully pursued his wife
legally and forced her to return the children has a further advantage in his image as he has
already got the court on his side. He already is the party who follows the rules, whereas
she is the one who took matters into her own hands. Spouses who circumvent court rules
Page 120 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes

are viewed by some judges as unstable. Every little bit helps in overturning the anti-male
bias.
An alternate timing advantage comes where the parents have some arrangement }
for child custody. For example, if the wife moves at the beginning of the summer and she
and her husband discuss how she will come for the children just before school, after she
has established her home in the new location, the obvious time to file is just before that
happens. If the husband is the only one with a record of single custody, he clearly looks to
be ready to continue it. Locking in school registration, medical and dental services -- to
establish familiarity --, local fiiendships, sports or scouting clubs, tutoring for music,
remedial reading, or anything else, all help establish where the children's home is. A father
who has the opportunity to work on establishing the children's connection with his locality ~
and who does not, throws away what could be a giant advantage, perhaps the only
advantage a man can have.
. . Ifboth parties stay in the same location; filing first mayor may not ·help. The party
who files first gets the first word in, and the second party has to spend their time
answering the charges against them. This first impression may help somewhat. On the
other hand, some judges do not like aggressive men. Filing first may rub them the wrong
way. Perhaps the only way to gain custody with such a judge is to adopt an attitude of
victim, especially if it is the case that the man has suffered at the hands of his ex-spouse.
Aggressively filing first may backfire.
One special case may involve a situation where there are two divorce court judges,
one known to be more pro-female than the other. When a divorce filing occurs, a
selection of the judge who will hear it is made. In California, the assignment to a .
particular judge is based on how busy their calendar is. Straight alternation may be used.
If assignment is made to the partial judge, the filing party can quickly file a motion, called
a recusal, to have the assignment changed. Of course, if the impartial judge draws the
short straw, the female can file the same motion .if she is equally aware of these tactics, -
which will force the case to the judge who is blatantly pro-female-custody. This makes for
more trouble, as if a second recusal motion is filed by the husband, the case then has to be
moved out of the local area. There is typically a particular spot where they go to, perhaps
the nearest other divorce court within the same county. Again, there is no substitute for
good research in figuring out how the choice of venue will work out so that the filing
decision can be made intelligently.
Another advantage for filing first is choice of lawyer. In a smaller locale, if there is
only one lawyer who has the fortitude to push for paternal custody or only one who has
experience in winning such combats, a female who picks him to represent her locks her
husband out of his best choice. This may mean that an out-of-area lawyer has to be used,
which means that the judge does not know him, he does not know the judge, and any
advantage of courtroom familiarity will be lost to the other side. This can be forestalled
by talking to such a lawyer, which is enough to prevent him from then being swept up by
the other side. That might be regarded as a lesser means of preemption.
One last advantage for preemption is the preparation advantage. The person who
files has as much time as he or she wants to get prepared; the person who responds has
only a month or so to find a lawyer and get their response together for court. If the action
is taken as a surprise, there is also a psychological delay. Someone who is unprepared to
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 121

be served with a summons to divorce court is going to need some time to figure out what
to do. She may have to make a choice oflawyer in a hurry and not pick the best one. A
poor lawyer on the opposing side may make all the difference in your being able to protect
your children from years of psychological abuse and having them growing up in a happy
and wholesome environment in your home where they can achieve everything they are
capable of. It could make the difference between years of struggle just to get visitation
and joint or full custody.
All in all, there are advantages to be gained from filing first in many situations.
Care needs to be taken so that it does not backfire. Once again, there is no substitute for
good and cautious planning and research.
Page 122 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes
IGDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 123

Should You Seek Custody?

Many children of divorce would be better off if their father took custody of them.
This note describes how to make the decision to seek custody and how to overcome
the real fear of becoming a custodial parent. with all its difficulties and sacrifices.

For some fathers, the idea of becoming the sole custodian of their children causes
fear. That is a very healthy reaction. The fear may come from the realization of the
responsibility involved, and possibly the thought that they have never done such a task
before, at least not single-handedly. Fear may be there because they do not know any
other men whoare single fathers. Fear may be there because they "expect that their friends
or co-workers may regard them as weird for doing it.
Take heart. America is a land of pioneers. All through its history, American men
have explored, invented, adventured in ways they weren't familiar with. Do your best, and
remember that being a father comes naturally. Ifit doesn't, there are scads of books on
how to parent. Actually, many of them contradict one another, but that is all right because
there is no one way to be a father. We each find our own ways. There is no right or
wrong. rear your children as best you can.
Once fear is put behind you, it is time to think rationally about the question you
will ask yourself: "Can I be a better parent than my ex-wife?" Being a parent brings out
the best in some people, and the worst in others. Ifthere is any violence on the part of
your ex, don't hesitate to step in. If she neglects the children, make your move for custody
I
now. Very importantly, ifshe is the kind of person who undermines self-esteem, by
criticizing instead of praising, by belittling achievements and emphasizing faults, by never
forgetting a mistake and never remembering a success, you had better get your children
away from her. Next to physical abuse, the worst disaster that can happen to young
children is to have their self-esteem crushed. It is something that may never be repaired,
something that will doom them to unfortunate lives, unsuccessful careers, unhappy
relationships. Don't let it happen. Put the children first and your fears and worries
second.
If your ex and you both are positive people, and you are not concerned that she
might jeopardize your children's self-esteem, you need to think about the question of role
model. Which of you two would better serve as an example to your children? Children
tend to imitate the parent they see the most. Everyone has faults, and children copy them
as well as our good points. But the bottom line is, who is more successful in life? If you
have achieved more through good, hard, honest work, you are the better example. If you
have ambition and she does not, you have your custody decision made for you. If you are
of better character, more honest and open and generous, you know what to do If you
have vision and can inspire others, and she is a follower, let your children learn your
leadership traits rather that her follower traits. Be their custodial parent. If you are pretty
much a bum and your ex is an angel, let her have them. They deserve. the best they can
Page 124 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes

get, and you should not seek custody for any reason other than the children's best
interests. Never do what many women do. Do not seek custody. for financial advantage!
The last question you need to ask is, is it possible to get custody? You live in a
culture in which many people think divorced fathers are more disgusting than rotten
tomatoes. It is a struggle for a father to get custody, unless the mother is an ax-murderess
on death row. Nevertheless, some fathers do. You will need to put up a good fight, do
your best to keep away from the most prejudiced monsters living in and around divorce
court, and persevere. Persevere. Persevere. Don't give up when your lawyer tells you it
would be best if you didn't bother trying and you would surely lose. Contact a fathers'
group and find a lawyer who has successfully won custody for fathers before. Divorced
fathers are being successful more and more of the time, not because the system is getting
better Gust the opposite) but because more of them are trying hard for it. Learn.to play
the game of divorce and win it. There is nothing finer in life than helping your own
children avoid an unhappy life. .
Think of the future. Watching your children grow up and be successful, or at least
seeing them rebound from the failures that we all encounter, is one of the most satisfying
parts of life, if not the most satisfying. Being a loving parent in daily contact with loving
children does something inside the brain to release tension and make fathers happy. There
is nothing to be more proud of than being a dad who has reared his children well.
If you get philosophical, raising offspring is the one basic activity that all living
creatures do, besides ensuring their own survival. It is the core oflife itself. Without
children, you are just one oflife's dead ends, and your genes become extinct when you do.
With children, you can send a part of you forward in life, with your characteristics and, if
you rear them yourself, your knowledge and insight, your good habits and your tricks for
getting by. Nothing equals raising children, and to miss it is to miss what life is all about.
One way to reassure yourself about the single parenting business is to meet people
who have done it. Most areas of the country have groups for single parents, such as
Parents Without Partners, the oldest one. Going to a group meeting and talking with a
few single fathers who have been at it for a while may be just enough to convince you.
They may have humorous anecdotes and a haggard look, but notice the happiness deep
inside and the personal satisfaction. Divorced fathers' groups such as KiDDS or any of the
hundreds of others can also supply this need. The National Congress for Men and
Children maintains a list of men's groups, as do many other umbrella organizations. A
locator for these groups is listed in Appendix A.
Reading about the histories of other fathers may answer many of the questions that
come up about assuming custody. Many of these histories are listed, in very abbreviated
form, in a book by Geoffrey Greif, The Daddy Track and the Single Father>, Greifis an
academic sociologist who has done extensive surveys of single parents. His book provides
both examples and statistics about single fathering. Another book with examples of
successful custodial fathers, as well as of all other varieties of parenting, is Paul
Bohannon's All the Happy Families: .

5 Greif, Geoffrey L., "The Daddy Track and the Single Father", Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 1990.
6 Bohannon, Paul, "All the Happy Families", McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1985.
KiDDSNotes Page 125

Searching' For a Lawyer

Fairness, justice and equity have little role in divorce court. A father must be
prepared to do whatever is necessary to get custody. Choosing a lawyer is most
important, but full of pitfalls. Here are some guidelines.

Are you heading into divorce court seeking custody on the grounds of fairness and
equity, or on the grounds of the best interests of the children? In a word, that's STUPID.
Stop to think of what happens inthe real world. Consider all the atrocities that mankind
has committed, the ethnic cleansing, the gulags, the torture cells around the world, mass
murders of populations, terrorist bombings and more, and ask yourself if you think human
beings are necessarily fair or just or honorable or any of the qualities you might like to
imagine. Think about the serial murders, the police brutality, the wanton gang killings.
Think about the history ofthe United States, with a hundred years of slavery, decades of
anti-union violence, unsafe working conditions, child labor, and so on. Think about the
political scandals, the bribery, rip-offs in the S&L industry, drug-running, the protection of
lethal industries like tobacco, the treatment of whistle-blowers, and on and on. Fairness
and justice and all those nice words exist mostly in people's imaginations and in the
speeches they make. The real world of the divorce court consists of prejudice and greed.
One of the most important things you must do to help your children get into the care of
the better parent, yourself: is to realize this.
To be successful in divorce, you need to reorient your thinking. Maybe you strive
to be logical and fair in your dealings with others. Maybe you actually are that way. It
doesn't mean that other people are. .Giving your children the chance they need for a good
life demands that you understand the processes that go on in divorce court, not that you
go around whining about abstract qualities like justice. Forget justice. You won't find it
and if you spend your time looking for it, you will have missed your opportunity to help
your children. Go get the kids! Fight the system later when you have the chance to.
Judges give the vast majority of children to their mothers in contested cases for
boilerplate reasons, probably because of subconscious prejudice. This means that they
make decisions and attach some standard words to them to excuse whatever decision they
want to make. The standard words meet the requirements of the law and allow the real
decision to be make without having any of the real reasons for it listed. You'll simply
never know what happened.
That decision may be completely psychological. Some judges may have, deep in
their minds, the idea that they are today's white knights rescuing a woman and her children
from some vague threat, such as poverty, brutality, or something else. Other judges may
like to dominate other men, denying them their wishes, and do so in court for the thrill of
being a bully. Some female judges may feel females have. suffered enough already in
society and so give them whatever they want. Other judges didn't get enough attention
from their own mothers and may want to see that the children involved in their divorce
court do. Some judges just feel men are unfit to care for children, perhaps because they
wouldn't want to do it. There are plenty more plausible psychological reasons. However,
Page 126 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
; ,",", -'. :'

if you ever mention prejudice and bias in court, you will immediately realize that almost all
judges have a self-image of the fair and honest umpire who would never give a biased
judgment. They don't understand their own psychology any more than most other people
do. If you push the judge's buttons by implying you think he is prejudiced, you offend his
sensibility, and he simply cannot comprehend how you could think so. He will have you
pegged as some sort ofloser or troublemaker, and you are likely to get even worse
treatment.
What can you do? The usual way is to get experienced legal help. First of all, you
must find a lawyer who is sympathetic to your hopes. Any lawyer can tell you he will
support you to the utmost of his abilities and to the limits that the law will allow. Take it
with a grain of salt. Almost all lawyers are in the divorce racket for the incredible profits
it brings. They process your case. In other words, divorce court is a game with some
standard moves, and they will do those moves for you at great expense. You want
. custody .. They apply for custody, i.e., they fill out the forms that do that. You want an
end to the financial oppression that whacks most fathers. They apply for reduction of
support. They tell you about fighting the good fight and whatever else they think you
want to hear. In court, they repeat the phrases they have said many times before. If they
win, fine. If not, too bad. Then they bill you. Win. or lose, the bill is the same. There is
little occasion for creative actions in divorce court, as long as the lawyer stays on the
ethical side of the law.
Some divorce lawyers know the moves better than others. Sometimes finding a
lawyer who does the moves better gets you something more than you would have with the
first name in the Yellow Pages® listing for attorneys. What you really want is someone
who A) understands the system and B) has no hang-ups about doing whatever necessary
to help you and your kids. It would be nice to have C) doesn't charge too much and D) is
okay to deal with, but these two are secondary. Most times someone who has A) and B)
also has C) and D), but not always.
Requirement A.,understanding the system, is more than simply knowing which
form to fill out and where to file it. It includes understanding the personality of the judge
who will hear your case. Out-of-town lawyers can sometimes find out from friends in the'
legal profession what turns a judge on and what riles him. Sometimes they can not, so
using a local lawyer is often better, unless the local guys are solely game-players. If you
have a good lawyer, and he tells you to act meek and humble in court, he may be doing so
because this is what has worked with this judge in the lawyer's previous cases before the
judge. It may also mean that the lawyer wants the game to go easier for himself so he can
get home earlier and into the spa.
Understanding the system also means knowing custody evaluators, as they often
make the actual decision. Surprisingly many judges do not like to take the time or make
the effort to make decisions. They want someone to tell them what to decide, and the
person they rely on for custody decisions is a custody evaluator. They are often called
mediators (California and many other states), referees (Ohio and many other states) and
other names in other states. Other judges regard these evaluators as jerks. Your lawyer
needs to know what the judge's preferences arc ..
. If you can, get a local lawyer who knows the individual evaluators in your county
or city. Some evaluators are more fair than others. If your lawyer doesn't know them, he
 KIDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 127

won't know how to pick one. He may not know how to approach the one you are
assigned to. Some evaluators like logic; some despise it. Some like and reward
subservience; others ignore it or regard it as weakness. Your lawyer should be able to tell
you what the preference is of your evaluator so that you can prepare yourself for any
interaction you have with him or her. Your lawyer may also have to interact with the
evaluator and must be ready to make your case to the evaluator in no uncertain terms.
Good presentation skills are an imperative. Like other people, some lawyers have good
presentation skills and others do not. Unfortunately, divorce law is where lawyers who
have trouble doing anything else often wind up. You must be selective or prepare to lose
even more than average.
If you use a lawyer, get a fighter. There is no more important gladiator in your life
than one who fights for your children's mental health and well-being. Ask for references
from experienced people, who have gone through the divorce process themselves or had
. numbers of friends who-have. Beware of paid-off recommendations. A policeman who
spends much of his time responding to domestic quarrels may be on the take from a
lawyer who needs business. There are also telephone numbers listed here and there, on
the walls of the courtroom halls, in the phone book, or elsewhere where new victims of
divorce might roam, offering free advice and recommendations on lawyers. These lawyer
referral services are many times used by lawyers who have trouble getting clients
otherwise. Why do they have trouble? Do you want someone who has trouble getting or
keeping clients?
How do you find a good lawyer to believe in your cause and work the system for
you, assuming you don't want to enter the no-man's-land of representing yourself? You
have to ask around and be very careful about listening to what others say. Just because
one person says a lawyer did right by them does not make them the best for you. The
opposite lawyer in that case could have been a legal zombie and the successful client .
wouldn't have known the difference. Finding someone with a substantial track record in
gaining custody for fathers is what you want. If you can tap into a fathers' rights or men's
rights group, you may get the best possible advice.
No matter what, go interview a lawyer before you decide to use him. If you are
good at reading people, use your best skills here. Figure out if you are likely to have a
personality clash that would hurt your chances: Then go home and sleep on it.
Interviewing several lawyers will allow you to make comparisons.
Ask your lawyer candidate if he's a divorced father. Did he give his kids to his
Wife without a fight? Does he believe, down deep, that men who seek custody aren't
macho like him, or that they are effeminate or just not able to live in a man's world? Does
he believe that the desire to rear your own children is just a passing fancy that hits some
men when they are served with divorce papers and will soon abate? If so, he certainly
doesn't want to get the kids for you, because you will soon get tired of having them and
they will suffer. Does he believe that it is just anger at your wife that makes you want to
do such a weird and ununderstandable thing like being around your kids for hours every
day? Maybe he only sees his own a few hours a week and thinks that is fine because
otherwise it would interfere with his career or his personal entertainment. Lawyers are
often the least likely men to want to be around children, much less rear them. If you have
a second wife already who wants to care for them, more of them can understand your
Page 128 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNo~s,

desires. Single fathers are suspect. You may find a lawyer who sympathizes with men, .
but has seen some fathers give up after he gets the children for.them. You may need to •
sell your lawyer on your perseverance and dedication. Do you know what you are getting
into? Have you demonstrated competency in other areas of life? Is your career too
demanding to allow you to take care of the children, and do you have illusions about how
easy ids going to be? You must let him know that whatever changes in the rest of your
life are necessary, you will make them.
This isn't a very good way of getting the best legal talent you can afford.
Unfortunately, there is no set of statistics collected for lawyers. The game-player lawyers
stay in business, in fact, the whole sewer of divorce court stays in business because of the
ignorance of the victims who have to go through it. For example, how can you get a
lawyer's track record? He'll tell you of his wins. He'll impress you with his knowledge of
long words with simple meanings. He'll tell you he is a personal friend of the judges and
evaluators involved. But no statistics are available, as in baseball or other sports. In
making really important decisions about your future and your children's future, America
has not seen fit to record anything. You have to operate in the dark.
After you done your best toward choosing a good lawyer, a believer in men having
custody of their children, and you have done whatever convincing of him is necessary, you
are ready to begin the actual battling. If you are a thoughtful person, you may need to
know the why of what the lawyer is telling you. The rare breed of lawyers who believe in
men being fathers usually communicate well. Ask and understand. The more that you
communicate, the better it will go. Be prepared for a long struggle. Even the best lawyer
has to work in the system as it exists. Be prepared to sacrificea lot of money and a lot of
time. Just keep in mind that the most important thing any person can do with his life is to
rear his children well. All the money in the world won't replace your children's future if
you don't do everything you can to protect it.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 129

Why Lawyers Hate Kids

People who go through law school have some personality traits directly opposed to
those of sensitive, caring parents. This explains why lawyers have a hard time
appreciating that a father wants custody for the children's sake.

A typical joke in law school goes like this:' "Two lawyers are talking over lunch.
One says, '1 had a custody battle with my ex over the' kids. 1 lost. ,1 got the kids.'"
Lawyers don't hate kids in the same sense as a serial killer in a schoolyard does. They just
don't want to be bothered with them. This feeling that children are nuisances to be
dispensed with js part of the legal culture. Of cou~se there are exceptions, lawyers who
actually enjoy their kids and spend time with them. The vast majority, however, are
concerned with lawyer cultural features, like figuring out how to bill morehours from
every client who passes through their doors. This is whatthey talk about with their
friends, what they worry about, what they give priority to. The opposite opinion, that
children are a treasure to be appreciated, is simply regarded as weird.
-If you go to a lawyer's office, you may see pictures of his or her family on the,
desk. Having a family picture is part oflawyer culture. It helps establish a connection
with people who come in and need to feel that the person they are dealing with is someone
a little like themselves, someone that they can relate to, tell their problems to, and empty
their wallets to. It doesn't mean that there is any deep love for children in the heart of a
lawyer, but it does mean that a lawyer can come up with a verbal profession of sympathy
for children if called for, but it will be as meaningless as the thousands of other statements
lawyers say and write for court that they don't mean' and-don't believe in.
Lawyers are a unique profession. They are self-selected, like many professions, in
that only a certain kind of people apply to go to law school, and the ones who
misunderstand what lawyering is all about and wind up there by mistake often get out
.quick. A lawyer is someone who could sue to evict an elderly invalid from the only home
she has known for fifty years, and not feel any sympathy, concern or compassion. If the
pursuit of money is not the only standard that a lawyer adheres to, he is out of place in law
school. The important point to be made is that lawyers do not relate to human beings in
the normal way. They would be inhibited in their profession if they did. If emotions such
as sympathy influenced the work that a lawyer did, he would not be able to represent the
non-sympathetic side as well as otherwise. It is part of lawyer culture that everyone
deserves the best representation they can afford, regardless of the morality or ethics of
their position.
Lawyer culture includes doing some cases without being paid. Doing free work
for the indigent, referred to as pro bono work, is one of the steps that the culture has
developed to fend off public criticism and make the profession appear that it has public-
spirited citizens. It is one hoop that must be jumped through by lawyers on their climb up
in their profession. Being a political activist is a lesser-followed, but similar diversion
from normal lawyer work. These do not mean, for example, that lawyers are sympathetic
to the plight of the indigent. It means that this is a part of the job. The professional
Page 130 Version Date: May29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

association oflawyers, the State Bar, looks down on those who do not do then: part
toward improving the image of the profession. . - . .. .'
There is simply little place in lawyer culture for children and the effort it takes to
rear them. Being a good parent requires traits that lawyers typically do not have, such as
sensitivity, sympathy and honesty. It requires that the parent give a priority to children,
not solely to career. It requires sacrifices that are not appreciated by colleagues. A
person with the mind-set of a lawyer typically cannot appreciate why someone with a
chance to have a high-powered profession or even a normal career could want to derail
that to take care of kids. It is ununderstandable to them because they do not have the
same tendency or feelings themselves. Because it is incomprehensible, it is hard for a
normal lawyer to believe that a father could want custody, except perhaps as a temporary
aberration caused by the stress of divorce. They might simply suspect that the father
wanted to avoid paying child support or wanted to hurt his wife by denying her the
children. Of course, wanting to hurt someone else or avoid making payments of any sort
are part and parcel of lawyers' ·clients' desires, so these motives are very dear and
understandable. These desires can be appreciated, as lawyers themselves might want to
avoid paying for things or to (emotionally) hurt someone else. They could appreciate a
father wanting to beat his ex-wife in a competition for the children, because competition is
the soul of adversariallawyering. But to appreciate that a father wants to take care of his
children because he loves them and feels he would be the better parent is simply not likely
to happen. This is what you say in the competition for custody, in order to go through the
motions of the competition. Actually feeling that way? Never! Ridiculous! -Who does
this guy think he's fooling!
What this means to a father seeking custody is straightforward. Lawyers aren't
going to believe his intentions, although they may go out and perform the motions of a
custody competition. One of the techniques that law school teaches its students is "client
control". This means figuring out the client and giving him what he really needs, in the
lawyer's opinion, because that's better for him than following his wishes blindly. It means
that losing the custody battle is not regarded as a big deal by lawyers, just as they do not
regard raising children as a big deal.
A worse hammer blow to fathers seeking custody comes from one additional fact:
Judges are all lawyers. They think they know what the fathers appearing before them
really want or really need. They could see the fathers as trying to slide out of paying
support payments, attacking their ex-wives at a vulnerable point, her children, or simply
confused about what they want. Years of being immersed in lawyer culture has prepared
the judges for what they like to proclaim as a major asset. They call it "understanding
human nature" and feel very proud of themselves for their intelligence and insight into the
foibles of those who appear before them in divorce court. They should call it bigotry. It
means fathers don't get custody if the mother wants it.
If you keep in mind what the lawyer culture consists of, you have a better chance
of dealing with it, both in your lawyer's office and in the courtroom. It is not likely that
you will be able to change even your own lawyer's opinions, as they are part of a
personality profile that began before law school. Don't try. Look for ways to express
your desires so that they can be appreciated by lawyers. And when it's all over, when your
KiDDSNoteS Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 131'

children's custody is won or lost and they are no longer up for grabs, then you can
consider working to change a system that should never have been allowed to exist.
Version Date: May 19. \994 lGDDSNotes
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 133

Where Do Judges·Come Fromi"

Judges are appointed by the governor after having been recommended by local bar
committees, based on service or contacts. Since there is no practical way of dealing
with a biased judge, it is imperative to find out beforehand and avoid him or her.

If judges have so much responsibility in ensuring that divorce is done legally,

ethically, and equitably, how is it that some of them do such a poor job at it? A position
that is the cornerstone of American law should be filled with the most exemplary
individuals, and there should be a process that verifies that this is true and that mistakes in
.filling judgeships are corrected, as well as that judges maintain the standards that they
should be held to. What happened on the way to the courtroom?
The motivations that men and women have for becoming judges explain some of
this. There are individuals who admire the position and feel that it is an honor to be a
judge and that their goal in life should be to be the best judge possible. They revel in the
high position that judges have, perhaps estimating it higher that everyone else does, and
feel a strong sense of internal responsibility to keep the position as respected as it is.
Some come from a family with many lawyers or judges, and regard being a judge,
especially a judge on the higher courts, as the only aspiration that they ever feel. Others
regard being a judge as a tremendous step up in self-respect, and their behavior reflects
that. Having such a judge hear your case is a benefit that cannot be overestimated.
On the other hand, some lawyers have a hard time keeping up with their clients.
They may not like dealing with people and the idea of continuing to interface with more of
the same types over and over again could be unappetizing.r They couldbehavingahard
time making ends meet because of their lack of interpersonal skills.
Other lawyers could have had a moderately successful career, but used up their
income on indulging themselves in amassing large amounts of property, but not investing
in any type of pension. Judges have the most lucrative and easy to obtain pension and
benefit system in California government, perhaps also in other states, and it represents a
major advantage for an older lawyer to grab such a position. Some could be so bored or
fed up with representing people in courtrooms that they want an alternate means of using
their law education. All kinds of motivations propel lawyers to become judges.
Judges are appointed by the governor of a state and approved by a portion of the
legislature, typically the upper house. There is little controversy on the lower ranks;
approval being a rubber stamp process. A few appointments are made by the governor on
the basis of persons he knows and wants to elevate, or as favors for friends, but the
majority of them come from the regional and local committees of the state bars, i.e., the
lawyer associations. A local bar can recommend someone for any reason, but one of the
more common is to reward someone who has played a role in contributing time and
money to the bar association. Someone who is a substantial contributor to their causes,
who serves to organize meetings, who runs for office or does voluntary work, who assists .
in legal education programs, or who does other jobs that draw the attention of the officials
of the local bar may call upon his friends to put his name in for a judgeship. Sometimes
 Page 134 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes
c. (. ~' ..'.' .

. there are no candidates taking this route, and the officials simply put in the name of
anyone that wants the position. Younger lawyers who find, after a few years, they do not
like what they have chosen to do, can seek an escape into the judging business.
The bar can suggest appointments to the governor for any level of judge, from the
lowest level where small claims, traffic court and municipal court is done (in California),
up to superior court (where divorce is done), appellate court and finally the state supreme
court. Almost all judges enter at the bottom level, and work their way up. Problems .
which might work to keep them from being promoted include complaints, the number of
times they are reversed on appeal, and the number of times that parties refuse to be heard
by the judge. .
Every party who goes into court in California has one time to refuse to allow a
particular judge (a process known as recusal in legal jargon) to hear their case. No
reasons have to be cited, but for a second refusal, of a second judge, reasons have to
provided and they can be ignored and no change granted. However, on this first refusal,
the switching of judges is guaranteed by law. Ajudge who finds himself with many
refusals by different parties may find it hard when it comes time for him to be considered
for higher levels of judgeship. Even though no reasons are cited, the implication is that a
large number of parties have considered him unfit to judge them, either for bias, for
incompetence, or for some other reason. A judge would therefore be quite displeased by
such a choice. A lawyer who needs to maintain good relations with the judge for years
and years can not easily risk doing such refusals often and may stall and fail to do it or at
least not tell a father he is representing that the judge hates divorcing men.
. A pro per can, of course, do such a refusal, although he might find himself before
an even worse judge. The refusal does not allow the party to pick who will replace the
refused judge, although in some smaller areas the choice is obvious because there are only
two judges doing family law. However, a pro per or a lawyer-represented client who
refuses a judge may find himself before a judge who finds recusal repellent and takeout-
his unhappiness on the client. Like everything else in the legal mess called divorce court,
there is no sure bets, only knowledgeable choices.
What about complaints? If a judge does not follow the law, what can a divorcing
father do? In California, judges' behavior is supposedly monitored by a Judicial Council,
which collects any citizen's complaints. There do not appear to be any cases, however,
where the Judicial Council has removed a judge for bias or prejudice or anything short of
mental problems, although perhaps they may be instructed in private if problems seem to
be recurring. Furthermore, judges can not be sued for any type of bias. This is explained
as ensuring that citizens cannot object to decisions they do not like by burdening a judge
with having to defend himself You are supposed to just appeal any biased decision you
are hit with.
With no effective review, and only a fear of no further elevations, a judge who is
content to stay at the level he is at is pretty much free to be a dictator in court, if he so
chooses. Someone who is erratic, falls asleep too much when listening to lawyers'
speeches, or can't give consistent decisions may be removed laterally to other duties at the
same level, but there is no effective removal or other discipline. The only choice that
victims have is to band together to defeat the offending judge at reelection, which is
tremendously difficult, or to have him impeached, which is even harder. The legislature,
KIDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 135

that is involved in appointing judges - some of whom may be personal friends or

campaign contributors, has constructed major barriers to removing bigoted judges. All in
all, it is better to figure out how to get around a judge rather than take him on.
Alternately, the media could be used to get him to realize that bias is no longer
acceptable. There are no easy solutions to the bad judge situation because the system is
wrongly put together. The only real way to solve the problem of bias is to replace the
system of treating divorce in court with a system of mediation or some other process
where adversary competitions are reduced or eliminated. But this would severely impact
the income of thousands upon thousands of lawyers and their associated employees, most
of whom probably contribute to the campaigns of those legislators who write the laws
relating to family court. Any group of spirited citizens had better prepare for a long
struggle. The feeling that there has to be a better way to do divorce has existed for a long
time, at least as long as the feminist movement itself One of its founders, Elizabeth Cady
Stanton, put it this way, "The wisest p.ossible reform.we could have on this whole question
is to have no legislation whatever. The relations of the sexes are too delicate in their
nature for statutes, lawyers, judges, jurors, or our public journals to take cognizance of or
regulate." Traditional American feminism is definitely not in favor of the cesspool of
modem divorce. Perhaps this is one topic that divorced parents of both sexes could agree
on.
Page 136 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 137

Jealous Judges

Are judges above human emotions like jealousy? If you are a candidate for making
the judge feel bad. you should think about finding out the judge's attitudes and
feelings and adjusting your case accordingly.

Could you expect a fair decision about custody of your children from a judge who
is jealous of you? That question is equivalent to asking, "Do you believe in Superman?"
Human being are composed of emotion and reason, and these two components interact. If
there is an available excuse for denying you custody, and the judge is jealous of you, plan
on the excuse being used to do the dirty deed.
-You don't have to worry about this question if you have no career
accomplishments, as the judge will just see you as below himself or herself from a
professional point of view, and you might escape losing custody on the basis of jealousy.
However, if you have done something substantial with your life, i.e., started a business,
climbed up in your profession, earned a lot of money, achieved a reputation, or anything
else that could excite some envy, you area candidate for custody denial.
The same spectrum of human emotion inhabits judges as inhabits everyone else.
After all, they are just people like you and I who have gotten a certain type of education
and position. Some people are motivated by a desire for accomplishment for themselves,
and others by a desire to help others. Another group are motivated by insecurity, and
work hard to propel themselves to a position where that insecurity is diminished. A
serious lack of self-esteem could very well be the driving force behind a particular person's
desire to become a judge. The pompousness of court could easily serve asa defense .
against a person's own anxieties of self-worth. A judge has trappings that confirm that
they are someone special, including flunkies to do errands, obsequiousness of lawyers,
power over people's lives, special rooms and knowledge, and of course more. It is almost
as if a judge's working conditions have been set up for an addict for the role-playing game,
Dungeons and Dragons, in which the player gets to pretend they are a king or a wizard of
some sort. Some judges are completely above all this nonsense, and regard the trappings
as simply environment. But some, those lacking in a solid sense of self-esteem, must see
them as the proof that they are really someone, despite the unconscious inner voices that
deny it.
When a judge whose inner life consists of a battle between the external ego-
boosting game of courtroom displays and an internal set of worries and anxieties that have
gnawed at the judge since childhood, anyone who takes the wrong side of the battle is
going to get attacked. If you come in as a competent pro per, you are illustrating that law
is not such a hard topic, and it is not such a big deal to go to law school and pass the Bar
exam. If the judge's self-confidence is based on his or her legal education, you have just
taken a hit.
If you come in as a successful man with close family ties to your children, and the
judge is an insensitive person whose children do not want to spend much time around him
or her, you have just committed a big mistake. You have shown that it is not necessary to
 Page 138 Version Date: May 29. 199~ KiDDS Notes
, ., ..... ;
.

sacrifice the love and affection of your children to achieve something substantial in a
career. If the judge neglected hisfamilyin order to obtain the judgeship, or did so while
he or she was a lawyer before becoming a judge, and feels that he or she is a half-failure at
life because ofit, you have just pushed the "Green with Envy" button.
If you are sacrificing some career advancements in order to take care of your
family, and the judge wouldn't think of doing that in a thousand years, you have called into
question the judge's values. "Did I make a mistake in putting my kids last and my career
first?" may be echoing at some level in the judge's mind. Better to answer ''NO!'', and
deprive this offensive-question-asking man standing before the bench of his children. And
why not take his income and assets as well, as it would help assuage the ill-feelings that his
presence causes in the judge's mind.
Even more serious envy comes with a man or especially a woman who has
foregone having children in order to devote him or herself to his or her career. Any
:.woman who foregoes the incredible joys of having children is liable to have constant
doubts about the wisdom of such a non-traditional decision, which might be an unhealed
wound made worse by every sight of a mother surrounded by her happy and loving
children. It may be made even more painful if the female judge identifies with men rather
than women and then has to endure some joker who has it all, good job or career plus
children who prefer to be with him, indicating that the judge's sacrifice of a family was
unneeded. How much relief could be gained for that hurting part of the judge's mind by
depriving the judicial victim of the chance to develop his relationship with his children any
further. No custody, minimal visitation! ''Now I feel better", says the quiet inner voice in
Ms. Judge.
What about a divorced judge whose children didn't want to be around him or her,
perhaps because they had been ignored for years before the divorce? Faced with a father
who wants his children full time, can the judge admit that his own choice to deny his or
her children more of his time was 'only an option, and maybe not the best one? A father
seeking custody is a father saying that family life is desirable, that a father's active presence
is important and even crucial for the children's development, and that a man should stand
up to his responsibility to be there for his children, not occasionally but constantly. If the
judge made the opposite decision to deny his children his time, can he help thwarting the
custody-seeking man from showing how much of a mistake that was?
What about a homosexual judge who wishes that he or she had been heterosexual?
Can such a person put envy aside when faced with an obvious situation of a person who
did not have to face that question? What about a judge who couldn't have children
because of medical problems in him or herself or his or her spouse? What about a judge
whose child has had serious problems, perhaps with drugs or something worse? Can a
man who wants to spend his time with his children, raising them and training them to be
strong in the face of society's temptations, not give the judge a feeling that he failed in one
oflife's biggest challenges? An observer of the nation's divorce courts can not help but
wonder how many of the weird decisions made by judges to give custody to women who
do not deserve it have their origins in the personal life of the judge.
To summarize, there are a large number of personal situations, ranging from low
self-esteem to children's drug problems that could cause a judge to be antagonistic to a
good father's desire to be the custodial parent. A good father, ifhe is wise in his struggle
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 139

to gain custody, would obviously want to know about such personal situations so that he
could adapt his strategy to them. There are two questions: how to find out such data and
what to do with it.
If the judge's personal life and personal feelings are well-known to the lawyers who
appear before him or her, asking one or more of them might be the simplest solution.
Other divorced men who have appeared before that judge may have found out as well,
from their lawyers or from other sources. The ideal situation would be for a men's rights
group to maintain a data base onjudges in their area for any prospective candidate for
divorce to use.
Other ways to find out such information are more direct. Personal observation of
the judge by members of the community might happen, especially in a smaller town where
everybody knows everybody else. It might be that the judge's personal life is well-known
and simply asking people about him or her would be enough to do the job. Many, many
people like to gossip and spread personal information, especially about people. in positions
of power like a judge. Of course, there is a need to be careful that the information is .
correct.
It may be that one or more of the judge's previous divorce victims has hired a
private investigator to find out crucial information about the judge, which may include
personal facts as well as any corruption charges that might have been brought and later
dismissed in one of the judiciary's secret self-investigations. The PI may have gone back
to the university where the judge went to school and found out, for example, that the
judge was a student leader of a women's movement on campus. Such a fact would be very
important to know in order to assess the judge's prejudices as well as personality. The PI
may have uncovered a closet homosexual or a history of promiscuity or any of a number
of other indicators of how the judge might slant discretionary judgments. If there are only
a few PI's in the area, a call to each of them might find one who does judges. It would be
immensely important that anyone who locates such information share it with other fathers
likely to be adversely influenced by it -- this means sharing it with a men's group if at all
possible. _
Judges are not the only people who affect custody decisions. There are also
custody mediators or evaluators, either attached to the court or operating independently.
Information on them might be even more important than about the judge, especially if the
judge has a history of rubber-stamping their recommendations, as most do. In special
cases, information about a special referee, sometimes called a special master, who is a
lawyer who is frequently or always appointed by the court as a child's advocate, is useful.
Sometimes information even about the opposition lawyer is useful. Besides the personal
information listed above, a history of the dirty tricks that a lawyer engages in would be
most useful in preparing defenses. Such a history can not be easily gathered, especially by
one individual. In the men's divorce battle, the old saying still holds: "United we stand,
divided we fall." Find or create a group of compatriots to help.
Page 140 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
KiDDS N~i~s'·
.... Page 141

The Pro Per Option

Version D~te: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
 ,,' F·' .
,. .'. ::" - :-;," .. '. , .
KiDDSNotes verSion b~te:'Miy29: 1994' Page 143

Going. Pro Per

There sre vel}' msny considerations to think about before deciding to go pro per
and represent yourself in court. Some of these are the prejudice against pro pers;
another is the time involved. Here are some guidelines to the benefits and the hazards.

Like many other major decisions in life, the choice of whether to represent yourself
or to hire a lawyer is complex; there are strong advantages and strong disadvantages.
Representing yourself, which is referred to as being in pro per or pro se, is a
Constitutional right. and may not be denied you. However, you may wish it had been.
The very name, pro per, is an indication of what lies in 'store for you. The use of
Latin words for a very simple concept, self-representation, is an indication of the barriers
put up by the writers of the law between an individual and his own right to defend himself.
A beginning pro per has to learn a variety of Latin legal terms in order to understand the
material he collects or the motions he hears in court. Of course, there is no reason why
plain English could not be used, except to maintain the pretense that complicated, hard-to-
understand actions are going on in law. They are not going on, but the legal profession
maintains its position by maintaining that they are. Ifit were desired by the various' State
legislatures that the Constitutional right to self defense were to be supported and
encouraged instead of blocked, laws could be written simpler, guidebooks could be
written, terminology could be made simpler, and other changes could be made. Instead,
everyone in the legal profession will discourage you from representing yourself and
encourage you to find a lawyer you like and hire him or her.
This is quite understandable. First of all, lawyers tend to be extremely egotistical,
which enables them to stand up and defend people in court with confidence. It also means
that many of them feel that law is necessarily complicated and only people with great
intellectual capability can handle the complexity and do it right. For an individual with no
training to go pro per and do just as well as they do overturns this little preconception. It
is insulting to many lawyers to be beaten in court by a pro per, just as it would be insulting
for a member of any other specialized profession to be out-competed by someone lacking
any formal training.
Another reason is that lawyers are paid much more than most professions. If it
were common knowledge that law, or some part oflaw like divorce law, could be done
simply by individuals in pro per, there would be less willingness on the part of those who
did use lawyers to pay the very high hourly rates they charge. Therefore there is a strong
economic reason for lawyers to discourage individuals from representing themselves. If it
were done by a large fraction of the people seeking divorce, many lawyers in divorce law
would have to accept lower incomes or to seek other areas oflaw to work in. Not a
pleasant prospect.
A third reason that pro per is discouraged is a practical one. Many courts are
clogged. Judges and court personnel do not want their work slowed down by beginners in.
law making mistakes. They do not want to take the courtesy to stop and explain the
process in simple English to a pro per. Some judges are so enamored of their supposed
Page 1~ Version Date: May 29, 1994. IGDDSNotes
_. .'-"~.,,'-.' .:.,... :,!:}

efficiency that they are very hard on new lawyers in their COUl:t,upbraiding them publicly if
they don't do the usual legal moves swiftly and correctly.the first time they appear. Others
are such gentlemen and gentlewoman that they tailor their behavior to accommodate both
beginning lawyers and pro per participants. Appearing before such a judge is a pleasant
experience; a pro per can feel that he is getting a fair shake, can be helped to present his
case, and can be sure he will not be insulted for exercising his Constitutional right.
There are other judges who do not like the work they do. They prefer to have
cases decided by the participants before they come into court. Specifically, they want to
be able to simply rubber-stamp what the lawyers themselves decide. Chronic indecision is
a trait that does not respect the legal profession. There are judges who have it, despite
their having a profession whose role it is to make decisions. They do not like pro per's
showing up, not knowing what to do, and not being ready to tell them what decision they
have agreed to with the other side. Others know that their biases will not be as readily
concealed if a pro per shows up on the front line instead of him just being spoon-fed an
account of what went on in his divorce and why.
The two principal advantages to going pro per are money and focus. The vast
majority of the money spent in a normal divorce goes into the pockets of the lawyers
involved. There are fees, but fees are nominal. There are costs of other professionals,
such as court reporters .. But perhaps 90% of the costs can be saved by not using lawyers.
In a divorce, costs are often increased tremendously by the award of legal costs of one
side to the other. In other words, the guy with more money gets to pay both sides' legal
costs. While this does not make sense rationally or legally, it is standard procedure. This
means that while a pro per father, assuming him to have the larger income, can save his
own legal fees by representing himself, he can be hit for his ex-wife's. What he can do is
to minimize them by refusing to play the game of multiple occurrences. Lawyers can
stretch out simple decisions over many days of court, and collect something like a
thousand dollars a day for simply going to court and asking to do a decision later. Two
lawyers can simply work together on not being ready when they appear, and court day
after court day builds up on the billing forms. A pro per who is getting tagged for this can
object. The judge may go along with him or not when he requests that the opposition
lawyer's motion for yet another continuance be denied and that they get on with the
divorce. If the judge is not cooperative, there are other recourses that can be done, in
scheduling hearings with plenty of time, ensuring that actions that need to be done get
done, and finally, threatening a foot-dragging lawyer with being sued or with a request
that the judge decide if the lawyer has deliberately slowed the case down and deserves to
be fined there on the spot, which is called asking for sanctions. Lawyers do not typically
ask that other lawyers be sanctioned, but pro per's might.
Another aspect of the law profession is that any argument can be used, no matter
how weak, and the pay is the same. Rather than conceding points, lawyers can simply put
together a case that is weak, present it with the knowledge that there is no one who is
going to call them on it unless it is pathetic, and they can bill their client for the time spent.
A tremendous amount of court time goes to set piece battles, where one side has it right
and one side is opposing for tre purpose of having something to do. A pro per is not very
likely to go along with this.
KiDDSNotes V~ionDate:M3y29, 1994 . Page' 145 '1

A pro per also may be more able to negotiate his own side effectively .provided ;
that he is aware of the various cons arid tricks that can be pulled on him. It isexpensive to',
learn them by bitter experience; clearly any advice from prior victims is useful. ,
The other advantage is focus. If you are one of a few dozen clients that the lawyer
is currently representing, it might hardly matter to him what happens to you and your
children as long as you pay the lawyer's bills. This is no different than any other
profession. There are car mechanics who don't care about the quality of their repairs, as .
long as their wages keep coming in. There are tax preparers who just want to get the
clients out the door, leaving behind their pay. Whether or not there are more lawyers who
are indifferent than car mechanics and tax preparers is a question that may never be
answered, and one that no one should bother to ask. The point is that no one cares about
your finances and your children as much as you do, despite what they may say.
What are the requirements for being a pro per? Legally, there are none. Anyone
can do it. However, there are obvious ones.for doing it successfully. While you can save
money by being your own lawyer, and focus in on your own problems more exactly than a
lawyer might, you could lose both money and custody by screwing up. If you habitually
screw up other aspects of your life, don't go pro per. Instead spend your time on picking
the best lawyer you can afford. I
In order to understand what the law says, you have to obtain information. If you
cannot easily understand slightly complicated topics, you need to hire someone to do it for
l
you. If you get lost in a library, where most of the information is stored, you need to have
someone on your side who isn't. By law, this means a lawyer. Lawyers have erected yet
I

another barrier to pro per representation. You cannot have an experienced friend
represent for you for nothing. You can not have an experienced friend sit beside you in
court for advice. Only lawyers are allowed that opportunity. I

Moreover, you cannot hire a non-lawyer to explain the law to you. Any such
person can be prosecuted for violating the state law prohibiting anyone not a registered'
lawyer from doing law. They would be barred from business. You can find paralegal
I

shops that will prepare your forms for a quarter the cost of a lawyer's office, but you need
to know something about what to do yourself I

The historical rationale for this law is that phony lawyers used to represent people
back in the last century. It was made illegal, and only those people who go through the
accredited educational process known as law school are permttted to provide legal advice.
Nowadays, the law is twisted around to block people who make no pretense about being
lawyers from assisting pro per's. Even if they make no guarantees, are very clear and
explicit about who they are and what they do, they cannot stay in business if they provide
legal advice. They would obviously undermine the legal profession if they did. Some of
the pro per offices are run by or advised by lawyers, which teAds to make life easier for the
paralegals who work there. But still you need to understand rhat you are doing.
This means that you will have to do your own research. If you were a good
student, this should be no problem if you have a large amount' of time to spend getting
educated. You can read law textbooks and understand what is necessary for you to learn,
step by step. Fortunately, there are many not-so-bright peopl~ who become lawyers. In
order to accommodate them, there are a number of cookbooks on what to do. A lawyer
can pull one down from the shelf and read the steps necessary to do something. He can
Page 146 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiI?I?S Notes, ..
, '" .., ....

pull another type of guidebook down from the shelf and read about what choices he
should be thinking about .. If a pro per masters the jargon, he can goto the same books j .• ,'
and do his own research. .
Filling out forms is another problem. Fortunately there are cookbooks that explain
this as well. Understanding the sequence of events that occur in court is a task that faces
pro per's. Fortunately, it also faces lawyers who need cookbooks to tell them what to do.
There are also many specialized reference books, arranged like encyclopedias, with
commentary on each separate point that might occur in legal proceedings of any type. .
However, the research is not something that can be done simply -- it takes much time to
educate oneself for each stage in the process of doing a divorce.
One surprise that a pro per will soon get is that lawyers do not always get the law
right.' Some points of law are ambiguous, but in a field as well-trodden as marriage, this
might be expected to be rare. However, many lawyers are in a hurry to get through their
work, as are other professionals. They do their job sloppily. They. make mistakes in their
work. They demonstrate misunderstanding of elementary legal concepts. Some are
decidedly easy to beat in court, provided the judge is fair and understands the law himself
Some lawyers argue that all appearances before ajudge are coin tosses, because
judges are not predictable. Despite the fact that the law should be the same for all people,
. and therefore largely predictable, it is not. Judges have discretion, and one judge can
make a very different decision than another, given identical facts and circumstances. This
excuses lawyers who just throw together whatever they can for their side and present it,
no matter how weak. Sometimes they win. This is a condemnation of the way that the
a
courts are conducted in America as well as condemnation of the lawyers who allow such
things to continue. But it is reality. A pro per soon learns that if the law is on his side,
luck may not be.
Because judges have so much discretion, an individual who is thinking about
becoming a pro 'per has to contemplate whether the judge will decide against him simply
out of prejudice against pro per's. Remember that judges are simply lawyers who
switched over to the other side ofthe bench. What is an insult to a lawyer, i.e., being
beaten by an amateur in court, may be viewed as an insult to all lawyers and the profession
in general. Judges can respond to insulting situations by squashing the pro per, points of
law be damned.
Another point to remember is that lawyers hang around together, and ones who
turn into judges don't forget where they came from and who their friends are. A pro per
might find himself competing against the guy who just went to the judge's house last
weekend for a barbecue. He might instead want to hire the guywho went golfing with the
judge the weekend before, or the guy who went to law school with the judge, or the guy
who shared investment tips with the judge at a law convention last year. Don't
underestimate influence.
The decision to go pro per is a personal one, whose results cannot be predicted.
There is no question that it saves a lot of money and uses a lot of time. There is no
question that the way is made hard by the many obfuscations put in the way by lawyers
who go to the legislature and write the laws governing their colleagues' work There is
also no question that lawyers are not specially brilliant or that the topics they work on are .
especially complicated, in and of themselves, although they may be covered with fancy
 ..v'Jsion Date~May 29. 1994 Page 147

terminology. There is no question that prejudice can arise. All these points make the
decision very difficultfrom a logical point of view. Perhaps it is better to make it from a
emotional one. Do you like to fight, to figure out logical decisions, to stand up in front of
people and speak? Jfyou like one or more of these, you may actually enjoy the pro per
process, and may do well. Think about it, and then trust to luck.
Page 148 Version Date: May 29,.1994 KinDS Notes,
'.1 _ • or
 - .
KiDDSNotes Page 149

There are a multitude of guide books for learning the law related to your specific
case. You can choose the level according to your interests and the amount of time you
have available. Most of it is interesting as well. provided you like to read.

You can't act as your own attorney without a concentrated effort to learn what the
law is, as well as the procedures needed to function well in court. If your case is simple;
there is not much to learn - for example if custody is the only matter that you cannot
agree on With your. wife, you simply need to learn custody decision law. But for each
: 'other area oflaw, you need to plan to spend more time learning it:
The important aspect to keep in mind is that lawyers are ordinary people, human
beings like you. They are not to feared or despised, but simply regarded as another group
of people doing another specialized job. There are brilliant ones and not-too-bright ones:
They all manage to learn the law. As noted elsewhere, in order to make it easy for
lawyers to learn and to keep up with the law, there are multiple books and series of books
that tell lawyers what to do in very many ordinary situations. There are books that list the
relevant law about almost any topic; reading them brings you up to speed on the history
and the latest developments. Other books contain forms that lawyers fill in for almost
everything they do. There are forms for almost every legal activity, and with the forms in
the forms books are long descriptions of how to fill in the blanks. These sources are
available in most law libraries and are as available to a pro per as to a lawyer with forty
years expenence.
There are several levels of sources for learning the law. One place to start is with
laymen's law books. There are plenty in each major bookstore. Here the elementary
concepts are presented, with each of the terms explained. Very little detail is gone into,
and no specific statutes or cases are usually mentioned. However, it gets the ball rolling
for your learning process.
The next step is the law library. The Americans for Legal Reform, a citizens group
that has been working since 1977 to combat the abuses created by our legal system,
publishes a very nice introductory booklet to legal research called "Using a Law Library?".
They point out some particularly nice sources to get started with. One is the standard
dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary. This is published in many editions, even paperback",
and defines in a reasonably understandable way what each of the terms you are bound to
meet mean. Words often have more specific meanings when used in legal processes than
in normal conversation. Besides this layman's guide to legal research, there are a number
of them written for lawyers.

7 HALT, Inc., "Using a Law Library", Americans for Legal Reform, Washington, DC, 1988.
8 Black, n.c., "Black's Law Dictionary", 5th Ed., West Publishing Co., 1993.
 Version Date:,¥aY 29, J??4 .r KiDDS Notes .
, ". -~-..,~ .'- ~~ ~.,

A second text worth getting familiar with is Martindale-Hubbell (M-H), which

contains, among other subjects, an overview of the law (located in the last volume). It
makes one familiar with the major issues while ignoring the details.
Following M-H, there are synopsis books, much like Cliff Notes are for literature.
One series of these is the "Nutshell" Books. These compress one area oflaw into a easy
to read book that lawyers in law school read to get the big picture of a broad area oflaw.
For example, you might read Family Law in a Nutshell? or Community Property in a
Nutshell!". If you spent an evening or two reading one of these, your knowledge of the
law in that area would be far in advance of almost any non-lawyer. By this time, you will
have learned that there are two sets of documents that describe what the law is and how it
is to be interpreted: statutes, which are passed by the legislature, and cases, which are
decisions and rulings made by higher level courts.
There are other series of condensed law books. A slightly more advanced set are
called "Hornbooks" that are also used to educate law students. There is also a set of .
large-sized paperback books that outline various areas oflaw. These books are available
at the bookstores on or near any college campus which has a law school. You will
probably be surprised at how easy it is to understand these law student books.
The next step up in complexity are the law review books. California has a widely-
accepted comprehensive one for family law'! ; other states may have similar ones. It is
published by the California Education of the Bar (CEB) organization, which serves as the
post-college educational arm of the California State Bar. Law references are often kept
current in one of the two ways, by having loose-leaf sheets that get replaced periodically,
or by having "pocket parts", which are updates that are kept in a pocket bound inside the.
rear cover of the book. CEB law books and most others have pocket parts; many of the
books that have forms are on loose-leaf.
A law review book gives you enough material to understand most of the details
about any specific topic. They are sources that lawyers use frequently for preparing their
cases. They contain references to the laws that are relevant, often quoting them, and to
the cases that are used to interpret the laws. There are law review books in every aspect
offamily law, for example in community property'>, in evaluating assets'>, in pension
division':", in grandparent visitation'> as well as other comprehensive ones that treat all
aspects of divorce'<-!". Of course, the all-encompassing ones have their own flavors, and

9 Krause, Harry D., "Family Law in a Nutshell", 2nd Ed., West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN, 1986.
10 Mennel, Robert L., and Thomas M. Boyhoff, "Community Property in a Nutshell", West Publishing
Co., St. Paul, MN, 1988.
11 Hogeboom, William P., and Donald B. King, California Practice Guide, Family Law, California
Education of the Bar.
12 McC1an~ W.S., "Community Property Law in the United States", Lawyers Cooperative Publishing
Co. (now Clark, Boardman, Callahan), Rochester, NY, 1984 (with cumulative supplements).
13 Goldberg, Barth R., "Valuation of Divorce Assets", West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN, 1984 (with
cumulative supplements).
14 Snyder, Marvin, "The Value of Pensions in Divorce: What it is and how to use it", Professional
Education Systems, Inc., EuClairc, WI, 1989.
15 Segal, Ellen C., and Naomi Karp, Eds., "Grandparent Visitation Disputes: A Legal Resource",
American Bar Association, Chicago, IL, 1989.
16 Adams, Stephen and Nancy Sevitch, California Family Law Practice, 8th Ed., Bancroft-Whitney Co.,
San Francisco, 1993.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 151'

have to leave out the narrowest details. Most of these are specific to one state, and each ..
state should have sufficient numbers of them to cover all aspects of the law. :. .
There are also compendiums of cases'" and reports'? categorized by subject. The
subject classifications are almost the same in all law books, and once you have learned the
terms and the organization, traveling through any of them should be equally easy.
The final step in learning the law is to learn your way around the actual law books.
There are several series of law books-? containing the statutes of each state. Along with
the texts of the law, they often have large numbers of cases that were used to interpret
each of the laws. Then there are the actual texts of the cases heard in the appellate and
supreme courts. Again, you will be surprised at how easy it is to read and understand the
decisions of the judges involved. Often one of the criteria for appointment to a higher
bench is the ability to write clear, understandable, rational decisions. You may find the
law actually quite attractive from an intellectual point of view.
There are several other texts that serve as cross-references to the statute and case
listings. One is Shephard's, which lists cross references between cases. In other words, if
a judge's decision in a case refers to a previous case, Shephard's will record this under the
older case so that you can find all cases that refer back to a particular one. This allows a
lawyer, or you, to find out if any further developments have been done on a subject treated
In one case.
From this list of books it is clear that learning enough to represent yourself
competently in a courtroom and to beat a lawyer will take many hours of reading. You
can judge how many by figuring that Family Law would be one course during one year of
a law student's three-year study. Typically he or she would spend one fifth of his or her
time for a year getting smart on this topic. That amounts to maybe ten hours a week for
40 weeks, or 400 hours. Much of that is probably wasted, but the number gives an idea of
how much reading you might need to do in order to learn Family Law as well as a lawyer.
If you spend 40 hours a week for 10 weeks, you would have put in an equivalent amount
of time. However, if you did that, you would also know much information useless to your
case, extraneous history, and other material that you might skip over. Even so, plan on a
hundred or more hours to get ready to be pro per if you are really planning on doing it
right.
With some judges, you hardly need to know any law, as they will guide you
through whatever you need. California actually has court cases that show that judges who
do not grant pro per defendants the help they need to understand the law are depriving .
them of the right to a fair trial and can be overturned; however, they are required to not
help you organize and present your evidence and contentions. On the other hand, some
judges ignore this and will simply ridicule you or decide everything against you.
A bit of your law research should involve sitting in back of a family law
courtroom, absorbing what goes on. Expect to be appalled at how little is required of
lawyers and the incredible legal costs that are awarded to them by judges. Perhaps it will

17 Markay, Christian E., Jr., "California Family Law, Practice and Procedure", Matthew-Bender, San
Francisco, 1993.
18 CALJUR, 3d edition, Bancroft-Whitney, 1979 (with updates).
19 California Digest of Official Reports, 3d Series, Bancroft-Whitney, 1984 (with updates);
20 Deering California Codes, Annotated, Bancroft-Whitney, 1973(with updates).
Page 152,: VersionDate: MaY,29.1994.l KiDDS Notes
~. , -.'
; . "

heighten your jnterest in doing it .yourself and show you how simple and repetitive their
«, ,'~
usual court presentations are. ." . 't ,C ' •• ' ;;,
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 153

Learning Legal Process

It is easier to learn how to do the process of law than to learn the law itself.
Process involves preparing and filing papers. serving them. and other jobs of a legal
secretary. More complicated situations may require you to consult a textbook.

Legal process is the paperwork and procedures used in getting cases through a
court. In order to do your own legal work as a pro per, you need to know how to do
process. There are several ways to do this.
One way. is to start your case by using a lawyer and ask a lot of questions. You
might ask about how to serve the other party with your notices and demands and learn
about service, although you could look in 3: law book just as easily. You might ask about
legal paper, and learn that all papers presented to the court need to be on a certain type of
paper, unless they are already legal forms prepared by the state. You might just notice
how the lawyer prepares for a hearing so that you could do the same in the near future.
Many of these elementary questions are not easy to locate in law books, as they are part of
an elementary law student's education and are not repeated in books on family law. They
require a bit of digging, or alternately simply asking a pro per who has already done the
digging for you.
An alternate way of using a lawyer is to find one who will serve as a consultant for
you on an hourly basis. You simply hire him to sit in his office and answer your questions.
You will probably have to listen to him tell you how much better it would be to have him
represent you completely, but you certainly don't have to do so.
Another way is to observe the law going on. Anyone can sit in court and hear
countless hours of divorce hearings and trials. You could spend a year sitting in court, but
after a few days it would seem very repetitious. This would teach you about the conduct
of process in the courtroom.
In addition to listening in and learning, divorce papers are public files. You can
walk into the file room of a courthouse and ask for any case. You will be given all the
paperwork that the lawyers prepared for that case. You can have copies made of anything
you want to. If you don't know what case to look at, you can get the names from the
court calendar posted outside of a courtroom on the days you visit, that has the names and
numbers of the cases. There are also cross-references in the file room or nearby, so that if
you know someone who was divorced, you can look up his or her divorce filleand read
everything that was done there. You can copy words, lines, paragraphs, or entire forms,
as there is no copyright protection on court records .
. An additional source of getting to know legal process are the books that Nolo
Press and other pro per publishers put out. You can read about municipal court more
readily than superior court (or whatever the state you are in calls the lowest court and the
divorce court levels) because there are more pro persthere. Much of it translates over,
however. For example, service is likely to be the same. You can read do-it-yourself
divorce books, which also deal with such basics as service, although they specialize in
uncontested divorces. These are ones where you agree with your ex-spouse on
everything.
Page 154. VersionDate:May29,1994 KiDDSNotes

The rules for court are embodied in a set of statutes, which you can read in any
law library. You need 'to simply use the index and read what the text says. Before doing
this you would need to be familiar with the terms or bring along a copy of Black's Law
Dictionary or use the library's copy.
There is also a set of local court rules that modify and expand on the rules that the
state has written, although the subjects they cover are very limited. Most rules are written
by the state, not the local jurisdiction These local rules are also available in a law library.
Most courthouses have legal libraries that are open to the public, although branches may
not have the complete set of books that the main courthouse has.
Another way to learn about legal process is to ask someone else who has gone pro
per how they did it. Of course they cannot provide you with legal advice, but they can tell
you what they did and why they chose to do so. To get legal advice you are required to
go to a Bar-certified lawyer. .
Compared to learning the law, learning legal process is much simpler. Once that is
done, it becomes a matter of routine for a pro per to prepare his own forms properly,
serve them on the opposing party properly, deal with the court calendar simply, file forms
in court properly, subpoena financial records, schedule depositions, track investigations
and do the other routine jobs that legal secretaries do. There are some tricks involved in
any complicated action taken in court, and of course, legal texts-! have been written to
describe to lawyers what to do in these situations. A pro per has access to them, just as he
does to any other legal books.
Setting up a filing system is a tremendous advantage to any pro per. Any system
of filing records that works is fine, but it may be easiest for a pro per to simply store all
court documents, legal letters, visitation notifications, etc. from both sides, in a
chronological file. It may take a few extra seconds to find something, but at least nothing
gets lost and there is no problem figuring out where to file something.

21 Witkin, B.E., "California Procedure", Bancroft-Whitney, San Francisco, 1985, (with cumulative
supplements).
 t· :'.'- ;,{'.,.- r. "0 . \.'

KiDDSNotes V~ion Date: May 29,1994 Page 155

Being a pro per is hard work. if you plan to do it well enough to win in court. Here
are a series of tips that can help a pro per to get organized at the start of his case.
where some of the worst losses come in.

A pro per individual has a number of handicaps he must overcome in order for his
effort to payoff. Of course he will save on his own legal costs, but ifhe loses all of the
actions he contests, he may be worse off. It is necessary not only to appear in pro per to
save money, it is necessary to win as one. This is not too hard for most of the simple
matters that occur in routine divorce cases, but it is quite possible to lose them through
carelessness. In fact, many lawyers lose contested items for their clients because of
carelessness, so it is not something that only pro pers do. This note contains some tips for
being a more effective pro per.
. First off, a pro per must recognize that just going in front of a judge and telling his
side of a story is not likely to win anything. Yes, he may have justice and fairness and all
the other good moral qualities on his side, but that doesn't matter much in divorce court.
He must learn that divorce court is a game, with some rules that haveto be followed in
order to win. Breaking the rules sometimes can be excused for a pro per, but many times
it will result in a loss of the subject of the contest. Since divorce court deals with
extremely important choices, relating to the future of the children of the marriage being
dissolved. arid the allocation of the income and accumulated assets of the parties, it's
important to do the court process right.
That means that a pro per has to plan on spending hours learning the law and
learning how to do legal process, which means how to serve papers on the other side, how
to prepare stipulations, briefs, declarations, notices and so on. A pro per who simply
walks in and expects his natural charm, inherent intelligence, and basic honesty to carry
the day is in for a sad awakening. And since cases are cumulative, i.e., decisions build on
what has happened before, losing at the beginning is important. You don't get a replay
because you are a beginner.
The first tip that a pro per should follow is to get a «black hat". A «black hat"
(taken from early Hollywood Westerns where the bad guy always wore a black hat) is a
person who pretends to be the other side and tries to poke holes in what you are doing. In
other words, it is a person who has learned something about the law, either along with the
pro per in studying together, as a girl friend might do, or who has already done it, as an
experienced pro per might. The "black hat" reads the papers that the pro per gets ready to
file and serve, and figures out how to attack them and what the other side might do to
overcome the arguments in them. This is a bit different from the friend who reads them
for typos, for understandability, for neatness and coherence. It is also different from a
friend who sits down with the pro per and brainstorms how to win a particular action. It
takes a person who has a bit of a competitive attitude, and who won't care about beating
the pro per in a game of poker, and taking him badly at that. A "black hat" has to be
somebody who doesn't see the need to flatter the pro per and can tell him that his
arguments are full of hot air, if they are. It has to be somebody who can think logically
Page 156 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes
, ,

and who has the time and willingness to read the work of the pro per carefully. Finding
someone like this may be liard; but it is well worth the trouble. It is so much better to find
out the problems 'with your 'arguments before you get to court that to have the judge or
the opposing lawyer or pro per find them.
The more experience the "black hat" has, the better. ' Sometimes the best response
to a pro per's arguments, if they are good and solid, is to blow smoke. This means to
attack the pro per on personal grounds or to change the topic or to produce a lot of phony
claims, or anything except to meet the arguments head on. A "black hat" needs to be able
to realize that and to figure out how the other side might distract the judge. The "black
hat" needs to know that perjury and personal attacks are common in divorce court, but
they are often done subtly rather than blatantly. It is better for the pro per to hear what
might be said about himself in the privacy of his own home or his "black hat's" home
rather than in court, and then to figure out how to deflect such attacks.
This brings up the second tip. Go to court beforehand. If you were going to have
to go play pool for money, wouldn't it be better to have been to a pool hall a few times
first? Go listen to what happens. There is no admission charge and no prohibition against
taking notes, although tape recorders, if noticed, might be a problem. The more hours
that a pro per spends being a court monitor, the more he is prepared to do it himself
Most days in divorce court in a large city there are other pro pers doing their own cases.
They can be watched and learned from. If the pro per goes to the court of the judge that
will be hearing his case, he can learn a bit about how the judge treats pro pers. He can
learn what seems to get the judge angry, if he is lucky enough to be in the court at that
time. Finally, being in court for a while as an observer is a good way to become more
relaxed when it comes time to do it as a party instead of an observer.
The third tip is to keep good paperwork. Most if not all lawyers file all the papers
that are produced in a case in a chronological file. Typically this is a folder with two holes
punched at the top with a binder clamp through them. Everything goes into the file, and
therefore everything important is always in one place and never lost. It is probably a
waste of time trying to come up with some better way offiling court papers. If you have
some things you need to refer to frequently, put paper clips or tape on them, don't take
them out of the chrono file. Lost paperwork is a terrible problem to have to deal with the
night before a hearing!
The fourth tip is to keep good files for everything. One simple means is to keep
one file for Xeroxed information about cases that might be referenced, statutes about
family law, local rules for the court, and anything else printed that is going to be useful.
There are also a number of items that are typically too big to put into the chrono file, such
as the court reporter's transcripts of a deposition, or police reports, or child protective
service reports, or psychological evaluations, or subpoenaed records, or many of the other
kinds of data that are needed for court. Keep them all in one place, for example in a
briefcase that is used for nothing else than court, or in a box.
Keep your own expense records, for example by putting them into an envelope
marked with the month and year, is useful for anyone in a divorce, not just pro pers. If
necessary, you can consult them to figure out what was spent on any particular category
to back up some claim you want to make. If not needed, you can just throw the envelopes
out later. Especially save receipts for all child-related expenses, which includes not only
 ,,-'~(:). "\":",., " .-~'l,_.: ,_.' -: ~

KiDDSNotes . Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 157

clothing but also food, transportation, entertainment and anything else. Most times it will
not be needed, but ifit is, having documents is much more impressive than having only
guesswork and memories.
The fifth tip is to make records of what happens during custody or visitation. A
few minutes each evening recording what went on, giving especially times involved, if
there is a chronic problem with late delivery or pickup. Recording any insults that your ex
uses against you in front of the child is important if you are going to gain more visitation
time or reduce her visitation time on the grounds of her negative impact on the children.
The sixth tip is not to insist on doing everything yourself You may be the world's
best do-it-yourselfer, a complete Renaissance man, with a history of taking on anything
anybody can throw at you, and succeeding at everything you attempt without any help
whatsoever. Forget it. If you are slow at typing, hire a paralegal to do it for you. If you
need counseling, go get it. If you need expert testimony on something you could learn
about, forget about doing it yourself Go hire an expert who has court credentials. Don't
fear to walk into a lawyer's office and buy some advice or a review of what you have
done. Don't pretend to be a private investigator if you have no experience in this area; just
go and find a good one and work with him or her. Don't try to be your child's
,psychologist if he or she has a lot to recover from -- hire a professional. In short,
concentrate on doing the main part of the job of being pro per, paperwork and court
appearances and let the specialists fill in everywhere else that is not so much fun for you
that you can't let go of it
The last tip is to dig up everything you can on dirty tricks that are played in court.
Lawyers, after a year or so doing family law, are familiar with these tricks, and you are
not. You need to find them out before you get hit with them, and prepare to defend
yourself and your assets against them. Talk to other men who have been through these
experiences.
The last point is not a tip. It is to enjoy what you are doing. Don't get so stressed
out that you are unable to function in court. You can always go hire a lawyer to fill in if
you get overwhelmed with everything. Nobody, (well, almost nobody) gets killed in
divorce court, and you will be able to walk out and go home when it is over. Yes, it is
extremely important. No, you will not be destroyed by it Yes, you need your total
concentration to do your best. No, you do not need to get so tense that you cannot
function. Take breaks every week and keep your sanity.
Page 158 VersionDate:May29.1994.
• • t "._. :;:..,. • _ •••••_ •• ~ "-;,\..~~ 1..1 ,
KiDDS Notes.

.,: .t
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 159

Doing Divorce
Page 160 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNoteS
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 161

Court Structural Bias

Courts are built around a system of 'equity', which means Dad has the bigger
income so Mom gets the children. Other factors make it almost impossible for a judge
to give custody to a father.

Fathers going through a divorce may get the impression that the system is stacked
against them. They are completely accurate. Besides running into the personal prejudices
of lawyers, evaluators and judges, they have to contend with a system that has been built
to deny them a fair chance at custody of their children.
In most families, the man is the major breadwinner. In other words, he brings
home the biggest salary and has the longest hours of work. Some' women take this role,
but 'usually it is the man who sacrifices more of his time' and his energy to provide for the
family. It may well be that he would much rather have forgotten about work and stayed
home, but our society does not easily give out welfare checks that will support a family
comfortably. Like it or not, the man has to go off to work, day after day, week after
week, year after year. Judges regard this as an obvious sign that the father is the poorer
choice to take care of the children. It may not be obvious to you, but it is more than
obvious to the judges of California and the rest of America. They never miss.
What does a child need? It depends on the age of the child. Young toddlers need
hugging and affection, a bit of teasing and discipline, and mostly love. If the father is the
one who is warm and the mother is a cold fish who wouldn't be caught dead wrestling
with her child, it would be obvious to you that the father should be the one with custody.
Judges see it from the opposite viewpoint. Older children may need tutoring in school. If
the father is the one who checks homework and reads to 'the children, 'it might seem
obvious to you that he should have custody. It's not obvious to a judge. Pre-teen children
most need a good role model to follow. Does it matter if the father is the one who has
ambition, self-discipline, organizational ability, creativity, self-esteem, and other qualities
that any child would do well to imitate, and the mother is the one lacking them? No. It's
still obvious to the judge that the mother should get custody. What about teenagers, who
might need someone in control, able to discipline them. Better to let a mother have the
children and let them run wild that to give them to the father. It's obvious to the judge.
The rules are indelibly written on the walls of the family courtroom. Mothers get
custody. No case that we are aware of has involved an evaluation of the qualities of the
parents in a fair and objective fashion. Instead, the rule is, who spends the most time with
the children now? That person, who is almost always the mother, gets custody. Father
gets whatever is left over. Does it matter if the mother spends her time with the children
by locking herself in her room listening to music and reading novels? No. She spends
more time with them, the blarney goes, and it would be less disruptive to them to change
that. Does it matter if the father spends his time at home in contact with his children,
takes them out more, does anything they need with them. No. Nothing he does matters.
The rule is simply that the father goes to work more and so he gets reduced to visitation.
This is structural bias. There is not one study in the world that says this is better for the
Page 162 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDS Notes

children. No matter how obviously wrong and how unscientifically based the choice of
maternal custody is, its foolishness doesn't dawn on judges.
The fact that the children involved will grow up in a few years and will have to
have the character and the personal habits that will enable them to earn money to support
themselves is a fact that the court regards as invisible. A father who is a model of an
enterprising citizen, hard at work, with a strong character, has little chance of having this
regarded as a positive quality and of being chosen as custodial parent so he can be a daily
example to his children. It is almost as if commonsense knowledge of what children need
has been turned on its head in the divorce courts of our nation. This peculiar inversion has
a simple reason. The courts exist to produce one result: to give the mother custody.
Whatever good qualities the father has as a custodial parent can be written off as useless
and irrelevant. Custody evaluators seem to see their job to be to figure out a justification
to give every mother custody.
Judges often like to divide up decisions so that everybody gets something. 1tisjust
something judges like to do. This splitting up is called "equity" in the family law racket.
Most times the division goes like this: Dad gets the job and Mom gets the kids. That's so
simple, so easy to implement without having to make hard decisions, so quick to get oyer
with, yet so ignorant. Kids are not something to be traded off as balance for something
else in the marriage. They are human beings and should be treated like human beings,
with needs and desires. They are not trade goods, like slaves were hundreds of years ago.
The structural bias of our courts goes deeper than these two factors. There's the
house. If Dad gets the kids, he gets the house. Rules are such that judges can only take
the house away from one parent (assuming they own it jointly) if he has the justification of
the stability of the children to base it on. Yet what judge, male or female, wants to turn a
woman out of her home? Men can move on easily, says the prejudice of our folklore, but
women are home-makers. The very word belies rampant bias. So to give the house to the
woman, the judge has to give the kids to her.
What about money? If the father has the better salary and the judge gives him
custody, the mother is left with much less than he gets, and she may even have to pay child
support. This possibility twists the smiling faces of judges into petulant frowns. "Unjust!"
rings in their ears. So, to give the moms money, they give them the kids. The best
interests of the children mean so little in a world of structural bias, they might as well be
pets. Sometimes pets even come off better in a divorce that the kids.
What can be done? In a world where bias is built in to the very foundations of the
system, not very much. The effort that Afro-Americans had to go through to eliminate
segregation should provide some idea of the amount of work needed to change entrenched
attitudes. Individuals are powerless and will remain so. The only choice that a father has
is to make the best of a bad situation. Men should just plan to keep riding in the back of
the bus until they get so angry that they are ready to band together to cause change and to
keep working at forcing changes for the years it will take.
 ·,
KIDDSNotes Page 163

The Future of: Fairness, .

What is fair to one person at one time is unfair to another person at another time.
Fairness and divorce are not related to each other at all. except in the empty
pronouncements of the courts.

Everybody likes fairness and everybody claims to want to be fair and to be treated
fairly. Fairness, like justice, equality, and some other politically explosive words, doesn't
really mean anything. It is used as a slogan by groups interested in furthering their own
success, individually or collectively.
The problem arises because there is no authority to tell people what fair is. The
time is long past when Amerioans thoroughly relied on their religious leaders, and even
back in the distant past we had so many different religions in America with different
standards that fairness could not be defined in all situations.
Each person has the right to use words as he wishes to. Typically people use the
word fair to refer to themselves and unfair to situations that arouse them emotionally.
Stories about men unable to support themselves on their post-judicial allowances might be
seen as unfair by most people, except that stories about single mothers without enough
money to take good care of their children would also. Yet these two situations are exactly
opposing. Under the current legal system, giving more money to one means taking it from
the other.
To solve this conundrum, various rules and prescriptions for divvying up a family's
finances in divorce court can be made up. Feminists and those seeking the female vote can
come up with rules that tilt the balance toward females, giving them some percentage of
the former family's total income. Others more concerned with maintaining the viability of
male workers and managers would reduce that percentage. Those who believe in reliance
would reduce it if the stories emphasized the indolence of the mothers and the industry of
the fathers. Those who are overdriven by compassion would increase it if the stories went
into detail about the heartbreak of the mothers seeking to buy items for their children and
being unable to.
There is simply no numbers that can be ascribed to a vague feeling like fairness.
We see the legislature changing the rules almost every year in response to voter input.
Percentages per child, for the wife, corrections for remarriage and former marriage, low
income fixes, high income cutoffs, all are based in nonsense. There is no such thing as
fairness in these situations.
What we have is various groups of "oughta-be" dictators. Some people, mostly
without thinking, get it into their head that something ought to be different, and they feel it
is the job of the state to make it right. The Bill of Rights in the United States
Constitution, marvelous document that it is, neglected to grant economic rights in an
explicit enough way to prevent groups from attacking other groups in certain situations .
.Divorce is one of them. For some strange and inexplicable reason, marriage's termination
somehow suspends a person's economic rights. What could never happen in the breakup
of any other contractual arrangement happens routinely in divorce court.
 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
Page .l~! .r, ; '-
I 1 ,.&~,•..• ~i.,· c
.t: •...••.
~. '~..•.• I ,.:1 c •

A better way to look at the problem of financial balance in divorce is to examine

the whole of it at once .. Looking at the instantaneous situation without looking at the
history of it leads to vacillation. Instead of just looking at the instant of separation, let's
consider a marriage from start to finish. Mr. Typical makes a good income and meets
Miss Usual, who is marginally employed. They marry, and live at a standard kept up by
Mr. TIs successive advancements in his field of employment. Mrs. T keeps marginal jobs,
one after another. They have children and one day Mrs. T wishes a divorce.
The response of the court is to say that Mrs. T. will get to take care of her children
and the court will maintain their living standard at close to the level they had before the
divorce. This, of course, doesn't leave much for Mr. T. In the overview, the court is
concluding that since the marriage catapulted Miss U. to a much higher standard of living,
after it is over she should be maintained at that level for years or for life. What happened
during that hour or so of ceremony that made her suddenly deserving of such a stipend?
Nothing about her, neither her. educational level, her aptitudes, her job history, her
industriousness, or her ambition changed at that date. What has happened that she
deserves so much for so little?
What happened is nothing happened to her, but she jumped into a system of
exploitation. Mr. T. probably didn't think too clearly about what he was getting into,
which is the purpose of this writing. He never explicitly and knowledgeably signed up to
be taxed as the court so typically does. He never did anything to be forcibly punished for.
It is certainly possible that the court; reflecting the feeling of the majority of the
country's citizens, feels that vocationally unambitious women should be supported at some
state of comfort. It is, after all, interpreting the laws written by a legislature, composed of
elected officials. But the same legislature should then provide funding for its good will.
Tax the citizens who support such largess to pay it, rather than the ex-husband who has
enough to worry about with his family sundering. Then the court could order as much
generosity astit wanted to, without damaging further the people who come before it. This
is the pattern followed in some other, more progressive and arguably more fair nations.
Charity should be voluntary, or at least spread over a large mass of taxpayers
willing to be responsible for it. The current system simply has no point in being, other
than to reflect a lobby of vindictiveness and anti-male feeling.
KIDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 165

Why Women Must HaveCustody

The financial take for a middle class mother to use the court's biases to gain sole
custody is enormous. Even if she is an incompetent mother, she probably cannot
afford to let the children go to her husband.

There is a huge financial stake present in gaining custody. A woman who does not
have any career skills comparable with her husband who does not get custody of their
children may wind up with almost nothing. Consider the alternative. If such a woman
does not get custody, she would likely be expected to work and support herself: as a man
with custody is not a very good candidate for having to pay a large amount of spousal
support at the same time he takes on the burden of child rearing. These two items, child
support and spousal support, can take 50% of a man's income. So she has the choice of
going for custody, not having to work, and getting around half the income she was
accustomed to. The other option, of not going for custody, and living on her own
earnings, leaves her with a fraction of her husband's income, and possibly having to
contribute something to the children's welfare.
But the payoff from custody does not stop there. The court can provide her with
health benefits from her husband, to replace those she lost from his work-provided ones.
She can be left in the family home, and not have to pay the fun mortgage, tax and
insurance payment on it if he is ordered to pay a fraction. Neither does she have to pay
him for the use of his equity. This can amount to the equivalent of another quarter or so
his income. All the family furniture is thrown in as a bonus. Thus her whole take for
custody can be the equivalent of three-quarters of the former income of the family, and she
does not have to meet the expenses of her husband. It may be a net gain. She may also be
awarded a part of the child care expenses, providing another equivalent to more income.
If the husband has visitation, she has the equivalent of regular babysitting to allow her to
have time off from mothering.
The difference between custody and non-custody for unskilled or less skilled
women married to professional husbands, a not uncommon situation, is enormous. A
woman with custody can have almost the same standard of living as she had before the
divorce, while her husband plummets to poverty. She stays at home as before, and doesn't
have to contribute to the nation's work or do anything else other than what she did before.
A woman without custody has to work on making her own way in a world she is not
familiar with, and has not bothered to prepare for, while her husband walks away with his
original income, house and the children.
A custody evaluator is supposed to determine what is in the best interest of the
children in making his or her recommendation on custody, as is the judge in divorce court.
Yet the decision carries with it such severe financial implications that consideration of the
children's best interests are largely a joke. There is little or no evaluation done in such
situations. Best interests are not even defined, but are left to the discretion of the judge,
which means he or she can do as he or she pleases.
Any woman who has these facts placed before her would be hard pressed to make
the decision to let her husband have custody, even if she knew completely well that he
Page 166 _ Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
" .:_,'-. '.,' l,'(

would make the best custodial parent. The arrangement of the law regarding post-
separation finances forces her to make a decision based on her personal profit and benefit
and ignore that of the children.
There have been statistical studies of women and men after divorce that purport to
show that women have a harder time financially. These studies involved cooked statistics,
where families at the poverty level are averaged in with those of the middle class. Women
whose husbands disappear and do not pay support are lumped together with those who
make a nice profit.
Poorer families have little slack in case of divorce. A man who cannot support his
family because of unemployment can not pay much support. A women who divorces him
necessarily suffers a loss in income, as his unemployment compensation, ifhe gets it, ..
cannot be stretched very far. Middle class divorce is different. Even in middle income
families, it is possible for a man to fail to make the demanded payments, and either leave
the area or simply depend on his wife's failure to pursue collection. These women also
have less money after divorce, and their husbands have more. But these two cases have
nothing to do with the cases we discuss here, where the man does make the payments, and
the wife lives on them. These cases, the average law-abiding citizen cases, leave the man
crushed bysupport payments and the wife living without any motivation to join the
economy as long as she can live on the largess granted her by the state's divorce machine.
These cases do not deserve to be averaged in with the other cases, as they distort the
numbers and mislead the press. They tend to reinforce the misimpression that judges have
about the plight of women and simply reconfirm their desire to perpetuate custody awards
and ever-increasing support awards to bring profit to the woman.
There is a further impetus to seeking custody. A lawyer representing the woman is
probably going to rack up multiple thousand dollar fees for doing his paperwork and a
little performance in court. Where will he get the money? If the woman is working, even
at a low-paid job, it is possible that the judge will order her to make her own legal
payments. This might mean payments coming in weekly drips for a long period, with
many potential hassles about getting paid completely. If she gets custody, and continues
to hang around the house instead of working, it is likely that her already-overburdened
husband will be ordered to pay her legal expenses. Here, if the lawyer is not paid, he can
garnish the man's salary or take other legal action against his property to get his money.
Both the ex-wife and her lawyer profit from a custody award. Thus there is plenty of
reason to go for it with all the honesty of a used car dealer. Big financial stakes for both
of these people mean that the state's stated mission of protecting children has zero
motivation behind it. Zero, that is, absolutely totally zero, other than the supposed good
will of the mother and the ethics of her lawyer, protects children in a biased court. And
we all know how easy it is to rationalize that which profits us.
 V~ionDate:May29.1994 Page 167

.Unheard Arguments
Fathers often like to collect data on their ex-wives' financial blundering, their
blatant promiscuity or their ill-treatment of their children as arguments for paternal
custody. The court ignores these arguments and presenting them can be damaging.

One of the saddest aspects of counseling fathers entering into divorce is their
naivete. It is almost a standard that a father will think that the problems that he sees in his.
wife will be appreciated by the judge as reasons to grant him sole custody. First off,
judges do not like to grant fathers sole custody, especially in the first hearings of a divorce
case, as has been discussed elsewhere. Even if there was a judge who tried to be fair and
impartial, and the whole court system was transformed into an Oz where no one was
biased, a typical father's arguments would not be heard. The system' believes that they are'
not important in raising children.
The first category of unheard arguments concern financial responsibility. A
woman who cannot manage her finances is not regarded as a poor mother because of that.
There is not the foggiest notion in divorce court that parents should be role models for
their children. A mother could be unable to balance her checkbook, to keep from
overdrawing her accounts, to remember to pay bills on time, to care about paying bills at
all, to be able to get a job, to be able to hold a job, or to do anything other than live in a
financial black hole, and it will not make any difference. Judges who are male chauvinists
think that most women aren't very good at money anyway, and they have already written
off that area of expertise as relevant for someone seeking custody. They might regard
bringing up such personal failures in court as tacky and vindictive, which is even worse
than irrelevant. Other judges may simply see those problems as a need to increase the
support the father pays so that the mother will have some cushion for her ineptness.
Perhaps the father should be ordered to directly pay doctor bills, child care bills, etc., as
the mother flubs this up. No matter what the result, these financial disabilities on the part
of the wife are no bar to a grant of sole custody to her. If the husband has them, the
solution is to garnish his pay so that he cannot fail to make necessary payments. Ex-
husbands are well known for these problems. I

What about more serious financial problems? Suppose the wife filed for
bankruptcy before the marriage. Suppose she has been hauled into an appropriate court
by some creditor or creditors in the past and that court found her irresponsible in paying
debts. Suppose she had a car repossessed in the past, or even a house or condominium
foreclosed on. Do these matter? Fathers have to be educated that divorce decisions are
compartmented. Custody decisions are made, as required by law, at least in California,
completely separately from financial considerations. The law was written to prevent men,
who are usually better prepared to deal with the world of money and jobs, from getting
custody Judges have no problem in following that law. They do not consider these past
situations as relevant. Even if the law were not written to eliminate such considerations,
the fact that they were in the past means that the wife has had one or more hard lessons
that probably taught her something and better prepared her for future financial dealings.
This idea of learning from problems is not unique to courtrooms, of course, and has a
Page 168· Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDS Notes. .

good deal oftruth in some situations. Whether any particular ex-wife has benefited from
the experiences is a matter of personality. Either way, whether she learned from the
problems or not, they do not count. They do not make any difference. They waste the
court's time and may bore the judge who has to read or listen to them.
Other considerations that the court does not pay attention to are the personal
details of ex-wives' lives. If your ex is promiscuous, and you have documented the
comings and goings of boyfriends into and out of your ex's residence, and you have
documented that the children are exposed to this parade, you most likely do not have any
usable argument, at least in states that consider themselves progressive, such as California.
The court does not presume to decide that anything in her personal life affects the
children, unless you have evidence from a credible source that this particular behavior has
definitively hurt them. What you think are examples of complete lack of consideration
given to the children, complete ignorance of the psychological needs of the children,
wretched. example being shown to them, etc., etc., are not important to the court .. A
mother's life is her life, her morals are her morals, and unless you have evidence of actual
harm to the children, you are wasting your time. It is almost impossible for an expert to
pin down what causes a child distress, to indicate that it is a lasting effect, and especially
to do this rapidly enough to have it ready for the initial custody hearing. It is certainly
impossible for you to do so without an expert. The judge and his custody evaluation staff
won't believe you. They assume you have an ax to grind. They feel you are trying to still .
control your ex-wife, even though you have broken up with her. They have many excuses
for disregarding your heartfelt worries. It's not their children, anyway, so there is little
need to get these decisions done perfectly. Besides, if you had really cared about your
children, you wouldn't have screwed up the marriage. So why are you coming now with
all this pretense of care?
What about neglect? Neglect is a crime involving failing to feed, clothe, shelter, or
otherwise care for children. If you see this on a regular basis, you might expect that the
court would respond to your concerns. Do neighbors have to return your toddler to his or
her mother when they find him or her wandering in the street? Does your three year old
have to scrounge through the kitchen for food? Do your children appear to not have been
washed recently? The court does not want to have to deal with this. There are state
agencies designed to investigate such charges, and if you have not gotten them involved,
you have missed a hurdle and have to go back to GO and start again. Take your pictures
and your schedules and try to get them involved. Perhaps you will have some luck and an
investigator will be assigned before your children are in college. Perhaps you will have
some more luck and the investigator will actually look at your case. Investigators often
have to deal with violence, abuse, abandonment, and deliberate infliction of harm, and
your claim of unbathed children is pretty small potatoes. Perhaps the investigator will
interview your ex. Don't exult yet. The investigator's report may say that the party who
was investigated, your ex-spouse, denied everything and the evidence is inconclusive. It
might alternately say that the party explained some mitigating circumstances, and the
investigator thinks the problem was an exception or that it was temporary. If the report
comes back inconclusive, prepare to be labeled in court as a harassing parent who is
attempting to make their ex-spouse's life difficult with false charges and claims. The judge
might wonder why you can't appreciate that your ex is having a difficult time with her
KiDUS Notci- Page 169

burdens of custody and that you should be cooperating to make it easier on her, rather
than make it harder. She has enough to wony about without a monster for an ex-
husband. No wonder she is divorcing you.
The result is, don't mess with anything other than a very strong case of neglect.
Your children will simply have to suffer because of the way the judicial system works. It
is not designed to deal with daily details oflife. Judges will often say that you people are
the parents and you are expected to go out and work to resolve these problems. Don't
waste the court's time.
What about physical abuse? The same people who helped you with neglect can
help you with abuse. "Accidents happen" is a common excuse used by ex-wives caught in
the act ofphysica1 abuse. The investigator's report may say, "'Discipline got out of hand
but it won't happen again', says the party involved. She understands her responsibilities
better now and has learned from the experience." This means your ex was interviewed
and talked her way out of it. Now the child welfare agency does not have to get further
involved. Their case load is probably a killer anyway. Again, you have nothing that
would be usable in court.
There is one progressive step you might make. With well-documented neglect and
abuse situations, you can make a stronger claim for joint custody. You say you want to be
able to monitor the health of the children, which is exactly true, although it may not be the
only reason you want custody. This can work. It doesn't appear to be such an assault on
the ex-wife as a demand for sole custody is. Get sole custody slowly.
Lastly, don't couple a request for diminished child support with the request for
more custody time. It has an obvious implication that you are in it for the mone ,not
because pflove and concern for your children. Furthermore, judges do not see to like to
take money away from mothers, and the financial change may be enough to tip t e scale
against ~etting you more custody. Remember, dollars are just means to an end. Your
children's welfare and future are the goals. Make what temporary sacrifices are ecessary.
Page 170 Version Date: May' 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
_._,.I!.
• • t ••• "._ 'f' -'"_S''' - ., ft,· _,'
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994- Page 171

Relative Arguments
Having relatives around to help is of little use in the initial custody hearing, but
they have some vel)' important roles to play in the drama that unfolds after that.
Some examples are listed here.

Often a father seeking custody is supported by his relatives. Perhaps his parents
have been closely involved with the children, and offer the father the. chance to movein
with them and cooperate in raising the children. Perhaps they just live close by and are
willing to serve as child care providers during the day when the father works. If the
mother had no such resources, then, everything else being equal, I this would indicate the
father would get custody. . . . .
As we all know, all other things are not equal in divorce court. A single mother
outweighs an entire complete family on the father's side. Courts do not seem to often
think that paternal grandparents add any benefits to the father's side in custody questions.
These decisions are beyond logic, as is any prejudice. It makes no sense to an
outside observer that a single mother would be given custody when a father and his
parents are willing to take the child into a more wholesome situation, but this is the almost
uniform decision of the courts. The same rationales are repeated in these decisions as are
repeated in the decisions that fathers without grandparents behind them hear.
If these decisions were only made in situations where the grandparents had little
contact with the children before the divorce proceedings began, or just had moved into the
area, or, for some other reason, were not close to the children, then it might make a I .
modicum of sense to leave the children with the mother if she had been almost the sole I
custodian of the children. However, there usually is no checking or no attention paid-~o- -- --
the fact that the father might have been the principal caregiver in the relationship, THere is
no checking to see if the mother is completely non-maternally oriented, and her care I
consists of seeing that food is served and diapers changed occasionally, while the father is
the affectionate parent and the one who spends time on the children's needs. With I
decisions being made which ignore even more crucial dimensions of family life than
grandparent care, it is not surprising that having grandparents volunteer to step in would
not make any difference.
This type of decision just strengthens divorce lawyers' views that seeking custody
for a father in the face of a mother's opposition is fiuitless. No matter what advantages
the father has, relatives, stability, economics, or anything, it simply doesn't matter. They
continue to tell their male clients not to bother, or the lawyers simply comply with their
clients' insistence on seeking custody by going through the motions and filling out the
paperwork, without any real effort to obtain custody for the father. Why bother irritating
a judge who will be interacting with them in many more cases by seeking to overturn the
customary decisions of the court? Why bother to encourage fathers to try for custody
when the lawyers know it is bound to fail?
Even more ludicrous decisions are given in custody, which confirm the biases of
the courts more strongly. A mother abandons the children abruptly and moves away.
When the father goes to court to seek legal confirmation of his de facto custody, the
Page 172 VersionDate: May 29,1994. KiDDS Notes .;

mother says she might come back Not only are her custody orders continued, but the
father is ordered to continue paying child support to his wife located far away from the
children, denying them the wherewithal to survive at a reasonable level. This is not an
imaginary result, but a real-life response of the court to child abandonment. Only after an
extended period of absence can a father obtain custody of abandoned children and have his
child support payments to his ex-wife terminated. How on earth could a lawyer assume
that it would be worth the effort to seek custody for a man when the mother was actually
present!
What should a father do in a divorce situation where his parents or a sibling or
more relatives volunteer to help him with his children? He should make the arguments
that he is better prepared to have custody, but know all the while that these suggestions
are not going to be listened to. He should make every effort to use them to obtain as
much visitation as possible, and see that his relatives keep constant contact with the
children, so that these arguments will stay fresh and usable in the longer-term battle for the
children. He should definitely fight vigorously any attempt by his ex-wife to put the
children in child care when his relatives can do this. Since this does not involve any
transfer of custody to him, it should be easier for the court to do so, and since it saves
money in a difficult financial time, it might be possible. Of course, contact like this can
only strengthen his claims for more custody or full custody later on.
This will also be an argument to use against his ex-wife if she attempts to obtain
court permission to move with the children far away from their original home. This is one
instance in which the courts have made decisions that include consideration of the parents'
relatives. There seems to be something unusual about the request of a parent to leave the
jurisdiction of the court that makes the female-preference prejudice less potent. It is
possible to speculate on reasons for this. Such a move would eliminate the income that
the existing lawyers make from the Case; if the judge knew them as regulars or if they were
his school chums or golfing buddies; this may have a subtle psychological impact. Perhaps
some other psychological influence might also playa role, such as a desire to retain .
control or not to trust a distant judge with decisions. It is completely impossible to tell.
However, having relatives in constant contact is certainly a good circumstance and well
worth the effort to preserve.
It may also be that one or more of the children finds it easier to confide in a
grandparent rather than with either of the battling parents; if the grandparent is the father's
relative, this could help detect any physical or psychological abuse that the mother is
perpetuating on the child. Abuse detection, especially psychological abuse of young
children, is terribly hard to pin down or to correct, and any way in which it might be more
easily detected should be encouraged in the maximum.
What about the opposite situation, where the mother's parents pitch in and help
her? In some situations, the mother's mother may hate the father more than the mother
does. After all, she never was involved with him, may not have liked him before or during
the marriage, and may have tried to get her daughter to not marry him. She may have
encouraged her daughter to split up because of the father's bad qualities. Now, when the
marriage breaks up, she sees her advice proven correct. She has the opportunity to work
on her daughter to make sure she does everything she can to destroy the father, to deprive .
him of any visitation, to extract every last penny from him, and to poison the children
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 173

against him. She may have such a fierce degree of maternal protectiveness toward her
daughter that she will take the divorce battle personally, and become even more
emotionally involved than the daughter herself is in her own divorce.
This is especially true for women who had unhappy marriages but lived in a time
when divorce was uncommon and tragic. For women of that era, especially in some
cultures, divorce was almost unheard of. The woman simply put up with whatever bad
situation existed, as did the man. When such a frustrated woman has a chance to have her
daughter go through a divorce, all her years of keeping her emotions in check make her an
uncontrolled missile aiming at the daughters ex-husband. Her daughter becomes the
means for releasing her own repressed feelings, and the daughter's husband becomes the
surrogate for her own husband, who may be unattackable or even deceased.
Regrettably, there is little that can be done about such a mother-daughter dynamic.
It is just one more burden that an already overstressed divorced father has to deal with.
'Conceivably, if the maternal grandmother of the children is completely off the wall and
makes blunders, for example, repeatedly attacks the father in front of the children and
adult witnesses, it might be possible to seek some remedy in court. It is unlikely,
however, both that the grandmother would be so foolish and that the court would care
about how badly the children's opinion of their father is run down. In short, it is simply
one of those rotten situations that our divorce courts inflict on men. Endurance is the only
way to go, hoping that the grandmother's fury bums itself out before too much damage is
done. If the money is available, perhaps some psychological counseling would help the
grandmother -- if she was ever able to admit what harm she was causing ., an unlikely
occurrence.
Another use of relatives is as intermediaries. If there was a close relationship
between the fathers mother, for example, and the ex-wife, it might be possible for them to
continue talking and for the grandmother to help the ex-wife see that allowing the father
custody would be in the best interests of everyone, especially the children. There is no
harm in such communication, although it might be discouraged by an adversariallawyer.
However, a lawyer has no way to prohibit such conversations; he can only suggest to his
client that she not engage in them or that she not act upon them. In such a situation, it is a
matter of how persuasive the grandmother (or ex-husband's sister or other relative) can be
against the persuasiveness of a lawyer whose income depends on divorce battles.
To summarize, having relatives around does not help a father much in the initial
battle for custody, but there are several roles that they should play to help in the longer
struggle. Child care, abuse detection, counseling for the children, and encouraging the ex-
wife to be reasonable are possibilities. As usual, a maniac ex-mother-in-law can make the
worst of all life situations even more terrible.
Page 174. Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
~. t . 0,' , •• _ ', t . !'..: ~,
KiDDSNotes Page 175

How to ComplalnEffectivelv
There are many instances during the course of a divorce action that a father might
want to complain. There are some clear rules for complaining that need to be followed
for each person in the system: judges, clerks, lawyers, referees and everyone else.

There are only two steps that a father has to follow to complain effectively about
anyone: he has to find out what that person was supposed to do and who is supposed to -
see that he or she does it. However, making a complaint effectively does not mean that
anything is going to happen, it merely means that the complaint is right on target. Some
officials and individuals have arranged their lives so well that they are virtually immune to
complaints and will go on doing what they want.to until they die or retire. The only
recourse with them is to get them to retire early.
Who might you want to complain about? To name a few examples, suppose a
judge berates you in court when you are trying hard to represent yourself as a pro per.
That is certainly grounds for complaining. Suppose a clerk loses papers you file with him
or her. Again, it is time to complain. Suppose a law librarian won't help you locate
something in the library and prevents you from researching your case. Suppose your
lawyer starts sleeping with your ex-wife. Suppose the child psychologist your ex hired
seems to be living in an anti-male fantasy world. Suppose the custody evaluator thinks
gender bias means women get too little money from their husbands. Suppose your ex's
-lawyer refuses to tell you what happened with the trust funds you and your ex entrusted
him or her with. Suppose the police have enforced your ex's visitation when she actually
didn't have visitation rights. There are lots of reasons to complain.
A preliminary step is figuring out what you hope to get out of complaining.
Perhaps you think you would like something changed, like the law librarian's rules about
helping non-attorneys using the library. That is one type of complaint. A second goal is
to get someone to do their job correctly. This is a second type of complaint. Either one
of these may have the secondary purpose of making you feel better, and of letting the
offending person know that they had better straighten out their rules or their behavior as
they are not free from review. It may also have a third purpose of teaching you a little
more about how the legal system really works. The fourth purpose is that someone who
effectively complains gets a little more scrupulous attention the next time he interacts with
the person who is complained about. There may be some possibilities for retaliation or
revenge as well that may make your life a little more exciting. If you think you don't need
any more challenges, just remember that retaliation for complaints is a perfect ground for a
lawsuit for damages and fines, and you may find yourself on the winning end of a sizable
award. Don't be too afraid.
If you want to do something to reduce the possibility that you might be retaliated
against, you can try an anonymous complaint. This often doesn't work. Many officials
who receive anonymous complaints throw them out because they cannot be validated or
checked. A few collect them and do something, but that is rare. If you are not willing to
put your name on the signature line, it usually means that your complaint is not going to
go anywhere. You have to be willing and able to take your lumps, or else form a group
Page 176 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
'~ . . ~ :::"" _'... ..0: .•.••...• ~
,I, ~ ,

with other distressed fathers to complain as a group. Retaliating against a group is much
harder and morerisky for a bureaucrat or government official. ",,', -
To get started on a complaint, you have to know exactly what the person you are
complaining about is supposed to do. Then you can decide if you want to ask that some
rules get changed, which is done by an administrative person or via a political method, or
if you want to ask that some person be told to do their job correctly, which means a
supervisor or boss gets involved.
Each position that you might want to complaint about, e.g., judge, lawyer,
counselor, clerk, and so on, has some rules that tell the person occupying it what they are
supposed to do. Your first job is to find out where those rules are written down and to
get access to them. You need to understand them. They might be written in legal
language, so don't hesitate to consult a law dictionary. Then you need to be sure that the
person who you want to complain about has actually done something wrong. Sometimes
you have to use commonsense, if the person's actions don't seem logical, or to take into
account your basic rights, such as to be treated equally to other people in the same
situation. Even in these cases, you need to know the rules that they are supposed to
follow so you can use the proper language in your complaint.
If you find that the rules are the problem, then you need to find out who is
responsible for writing these rules, and complain to them. For example, a rule prohibiting
non-attorney use of a library might have been made by the librarian, or by the state
legislature that funds them. A call to your state legislator may be the best way to resolve
the dilemma. If you can't find out why the rule is in place, the best way to proceed is to
continue to ask questions of the supervisors involved. If you get conflicting results, then it
.is time to complain to a higher level. Clearly state the conflicting statements that you
received, the dates, and the people involved, and ask the next level of supervisor to
respond to you. If you receive no response, and can't locate the next level, get in touch
with a state representative. Government is not supposed to work this way.
If the rules are good ones, and you just want them enforced, you need to
determine the proper way to complain. Sometimes there is more than one way to
complain about a particular person, depending on what it is that you want to complain
. about.
Judges are a good example. If a judge did or didn't do something that affects, in a
substantial way, the outcome of your court case that the judge is hearing, you might
consider either doing an appeal to the next higher level of court, if the problem you are
complaining about is a final judgment in some way, such as a property division or a
custody/visitation arrangement. If it isn't a final judgment, you need to seek a writ, which
is an order from a higher court telling a judge to do his job properly. If what the judge did
only affected your case slightly or not at all, but was, say, insulting, then you need to
complain through the judge's supervisory channels.
Any good law library should have books on appeals, and typically one of the first
chapters tells a reader how to determine if there are grounds for an appeal. There are also
books on writs for those situations requiring one. The rules that are involved are the rules
that judges are supposed to use to conduct trials and hearings; these are published in the
appeal and writ manuals, as well as in many other places. Appeals and writs take a lot of
time to do, and have some court costs associated with them if you do them yourself If
 KIDDSNotes Page17?

you use a lawyer they can be darned expensive .. However, there is no other way to change
a judge's decision and once you are stuck with it, you have to go through this process to '.
get it changed. I . .... ....
Other problems with judges do not involve appeals or writs but concern the judge's
courtroom manner, hi~ (or her) non-judicial actions, his scheduling, or some other aspect
of his behavior. Consider an example. Suppose the judge always hears your case last
during a morning; out often other hearings to be held, yours always seems to be called
last. You get to wait all morning while everyone else seems to get out early. If this
happens once, it might be chance. If it happens twice, perhaps it is coincidence. But with
three or more occurrences, you can begin to be sure that the judge is deliberately giving
you last place. This doesn't hurt your case. It just hurts your ego and wastes your time.
You can be sure that the judge has the authority to decide who gets heard first and
who gets to. be last. BQt you can also be sure that judges are supposed to treat all cases
equally, and being last all the time does not seem equal to you. You might want to first
check that the law requires judges to treat cases equally, but where do you find this? First,
there is a set of laws that judges have to follow, and they are printed in the set of statutes
of the state. You need to find the section in the statutes on court rules.
The other place you should look is in the lessons that are prepared for judges. Just
like any other profession, judges need to study and learn how to be judges and there must
be written materials for this purpose .' It would be unbelievable that each judge was
supposed to hear the rules for running a courtroom once and commit it all to memory.
Somewhere the material exists. You need to find it. In California, judicial education is
handled by two sources, one, a part of the government called the Judicial Council, one, a
quasi-private institution named The California Center for Judicial Education and Research.
Both produce materials for judges. Other states should have equivalent institutions.
These materials might be found in a good law library. In these materials you can find text
. on how to schedule courtroom time, and perhaps you can find some material that says that
the real nuisance cases, such as fathers seeking custody, should be heard last. If so, then
you need to complain to the people who wrote that, rather than to the judge's supervisors.
However, it is not likely that this recommendation appears in any state, and that the
materials tell judges to treat cases as they come up, or schedule the short ones immediately
and let the longer ones go last. If yours has been a short one and still last, you need to
complain. You can cite the references you found to back up your claim that the judge's
prejudices are wasting your time.
Who do you complain to? A judge has a local supervisor, who might be called the
Presiding Judge (in California), or something else in other states. You would ask the
county clerk who is the judge who supervises the judges in your county. Then you would
write your complaint to him. There is also a statewide board of review. In California, that
is the Judicial Council. A particular office in the judicial review branch deals with citizen
complaints.
How do you get any of these judges or agencies to do something other than laugh
when they get your complaint? FIrst, make sure that if there is any official form that must
be used, you obtain it and use it. Don't be afraid that something terrible is going to happen
if you give your name to the office that sends out the forms. Most likely, there is just
another bored bureaucrat on the other end of the line who is going to put your name on an
Page 178 Version Date: May 29,1994

envelope and pop it in the outgoing mailbox. ,Ho'Yever,compl.aining to,.aj~dge ora gro~p,
of judges about another judge is like complaining about a doctor to a group of doctors. ,.
The usual "us against them" mentality that many professions have is prevalent among ,
Judges as well. The judges may be looking for ways to quiet down citizen complaints and
keep anything substantial from happening, If you don't believe that, just call up the
supervising judge and ask him when the last judge was removed for bias or incompetence.
Was it in this century?
If you are lucky, the supervising judge really cares about doing his job and takes
your complain seriously. You get a response in a reasonable time, and the problem goes
away.
However, you may not be lucky and have to work a bit harder. To get a real
response in some situations, you may need allies. It's like the medical profession. In order
to get the attention of a group of supervisory doctors, you often need to have a lawyer on
your side who is versed in medical malpractice. That opens everybody's eyes. You may .:
need someone equally influential.
You can check out three sources of support to get your complaint heard. The first
is everybody's ally, the press. If your complaint has some merit and the problem is
particularly obnoxious and easy to explain, call the local papers to find out who covers the
judicial scene. Often you will find a very bored reporter who is very happy, no,
extraordinarily happy, to find someone who might have a lead on a possible story. Tell
him (or her, as usual) in a concise way, what it is you are mad about. Perhaps he will have
some insights or suggestions. At the worst, he jots down a note and waits until a second
or third person calls up to complain about the same person.
Your elected representatives are your allies as well, or at least they should be.
Write a letter to each of them in the state legislature. You can get their names and
addresses from the county or city clerks' offices. Tell them why you are angry and ask for
their help. One letter might get some action. Several letters from different people about
the same person certainly will. Legislators know that each voter who writes them and is
satisfied that the legislators are working for him will generate many votes. They may also
have a personal sympathy for you, but whether or not they do, they know that favors for
voters payoff. In the judge example used above, you might expect them to make a call to
someone on the legislature's judicial committee to find out something related to your
complaint, and then to get back to you. You might expect that they will have a staff
member write to you about how to more effectively complain, or that your letter has been
forwarded to a fellow legislator who is more involved in the problem. At the very least,
you will have opened up a channel of communication and made someone on the
legislator's staff aware of an area of voter interest.
A men's rights group can also serve as an ally. A complaint letter written on the
stationery of a many member group carries much more weight than does one person's
letter. The group may have someone else who has had the same problem and who has
gone through the hoops of complaint already, and perhaps has some helpful advice. A
letter from a large group to a legislator gets a lot of attention, 'especially if the group is
politically active and has made themselves known to the legislators. Even a small group,
composed of men you have recruited yourself, is a good start at making a stronger
. .
impression.
 ~.~::.{~i·:~'
KiDDSNotes V~ori Date: ~y 29,1994 Page 179

. Other people you might want to complain about besides judges are members of the
court, such as clerks. For these, you write to the judge himself if you don't have a case
being heard before him, but otherwise you cannot communicate with the judge directly,
You could send the complaint directly to the supervising judge, who can relay the
complaint without doing anything that might affect your case. If the clerk did something
that affected your case, then you need to make the complaint in a motion that asks the
court to do something about it. For example, if the clerk lost a paper you filed, and you
have the copy that the clerk stamped, but you got taken off the calendar because of the
lack of the paper, your motion would request that whatever happened to you because the
original paper was lost be reversed. You do not need to have any loss because of a clerk's
error.
In some states, people doing custody evaluation work directly for a judge, in
others, they are part of an agency the county has control over. To complain about a
.particular custody evaluator, you would find out who is the supervisor by calling the
agency's office. You should also expect that there are formal means for complaining of
evaluators, and you need to check the rules of court to find them out. The same rules
need to be checked to find out how evaluators are supposed to behave, and your
complaint should reference these rules. Your opinion of what a custody evaluator should
do may not have any relation to what rules the evaluators have to follow, and it will be
ignored if you do not find out these rules. You cannot make an effective complaint
without doing some research.
If your complaint is based on the court's rules for evaluators, and it gets no
response, what do you do? In other words, you did your work, and found out who was a
custody evaluator's supervisor, what the evaluator was supposed to do, and wrote a letter
describing how, in evaluating your situation, he or she didn't do that. Nothing happens.
A second step is to send a copy of the letter, along with a covering letter asking when you
might receive a response, by certified mail to the supervisor, with a copy to all those who
might serve as allies. If again you get no response, you then need to find out the next step
up in the hierarchy. It is probably also time to send a direct letter to your elected
representatives, and explain the difficulty you are having in getting any response from the
agency involved. A personal phone call to the representative's staff might also help, but be
sure that you also send a letter.
You might also, if your connection with a sizable men's rights group is solid, ask
one of the officials there to send a supporting letter to one of the levels of complaint,
stating that there seems to be a problem in responding to client complaints and requesting
a personal meeting between the leaders of the group and the supervisor so that they can
express their concerns about the importance of responding to complaints.
You complaint, as an individual, can be thrown in the trash can and ignored. If
you are successful in gaining some support, you can shake the system up and make it
respond to you. But, of course, you cannot expect assistance unless you have done your
homework correctly and determined the proper person to complaint to and the best way to
make your complaint.
Two other groups of possible sources of grief to you, lawyers and mental health
professionals, have a different mode of complaint. To complain about a lawyer, you need
to complain to the state bar association. Each state bar has an office set up to hear
Page 180 Version Date: May 29,1994 IGDDSNotes

complaints about lawyers. Before you make your complaint, you would spend s0n1~time
in a law library, reading about what lawyers' ethics are supposed to be, how they are
supposed to treat clients, how they are supposed to bill them, and so on. When you have
determined some basis for.your complaint, you go to the complaint office of the bar
association and fill out a report; either on a standard form or by following some directions
they provide to you.
Here, you cannot expect much help from any of the normal allies you would use.
There is a feeling of caveat emptor here, in that, you chose the guy so you get to live with
him. However, if you have a gross complaint, such as embezzlement of funds from a trust
account or some other source, then you have a right to demand an investigation. If you
don't get one from the bar association within a reasonable time, it is time to contact your
representative.
In 1990, enough people had contacted their representatives in California for
something to be done. The California State Bar, the lawyer's equivalent of a union, is an
association chartered by the state. Because they were stonewalling 'on countless serious
complaints against lawyers, the legislature denied them the right to collect dues until
something got done. Within a few months, the lawyers in the California State Bar had
revised their complaint procedure and started working down the backlog of complaints.
True, not too many more complainers were satisfied by the results of their investigations,
but at least they got timely action. The stonewalling problem was solved.
There are equivalent associations for most specialties in the mental health field.
There should be an office, typically located in the state capital, that handles client
complaints. You will need to locate the right professional association, which might be
found from the designation used by the person you are going to complain about. For
example, a psychiatrist is an MD, and the state medical association has a branch for
psychiatrists, which in turn probably has a complaint office or a complain person. Other
professionals are not part of the medical arena, but often have their own association.
Psychologists have the American Psychological Association, which is more of a
professional society than the AMA. However, contacting them might lead you to the
proper office to complain to. The mental health field, however, does have people in it
who are responsible to no one. It is your job, before agreeing to let someone interview
you or your children regarding custody, to determine if his or her professional
qualifications are adequate, and by adequate you should mean belonging to an association
that can disciple errant members. When you talk to a mental health professional about
doing a service for you and you don't know his professional affiliation, ask. Ask where the
association is headquartered and spend the long distance charge to askthem if they have a
complaint office. If not, you might want to use a different professional. However, unless
you stick with psychiatrists, the complaint procedure for mental health professionals is
likely to be less rigorous than you might like.
If the psychiatrist or lawyer or other professional is appointed, not by you, but by
order of the court and you have no say in who is chosen, you then can complain to the
judge or to his or her superiors if the choice that is made is poor. If the chosen person has
no proper credentials, you have no choice but to complain via the judicial system. Just be
sure it is not the judge's best friend's wife, ex-law firm partner, or faculty colleague you
are complaining about. For cases of apparently corrupt choice of professional such as
 l)., (' .~.·1 ,'~ 1J h :. . [
Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 181

these, you need to contact the higher level of judged om. Talking to a newspaper reporter
wouldn't hurt, either. Judges have been known to be as corrupt as politicians, and if you
discover such a judge, be sure to get some help in removing him or her from office.
Making an effective complaint is, at the very least, a job taking a few hours work
and some careful thinking. However, before you decide against doing it, just think that if
you don't complain, the next father to come through the system may get hit with the same
problem. Help him by helping the system find out itsbad apples and bad rules and getting
them fixed.
Page 1~2Ci KiDDS Notes.
; .; '.~..'

,<
.•........•..
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 183

When to Call a Judge' s.Bluff

Not every order a judge gives is correctly given or worth enforcing. If one is
particularly unreasonable, you need to check to see if it is a bluff or an error on the
judge's part. If so, there are ways to avoid having it enforced.

If you live in a remote area, have no local resources to calion, have a lawyer who
is a close friend of the judge, are out of money, and don't want to leave the area, the
answer is NEVER Some country judges are uncontrolled by their superiors, and simply
rule like warlords over a fiefdom. Some put people in jail on whims, and an individual
without any recourse just suffers.
Most of us· are not in that situation. We have well-defined rights that we can insist
on,"if we know what they are. 'Most of us are not specialists in our rights, however, and
so need some help in figuring out what a judge can get away with in ordering divorcing
fathers around.
Your lawyer may be of help in counseling you on what you have to do and what
you can get away with ignoring or opposing. On the other hand, you may be stuck with a
lawyer who doesn't want to waste any time with recalcitrant clients, who is milder than the
average lawyer and is afraid of angering the judge, who is not too clear on rights himself
and is confused about what to do, or who is trying to not cause any problem with the
judge because he needs help in getting fee awards from him on a whole slew of upcoming
cases. You won't know which of these is true, if any, or if some other problem is holding
him back from supporting your desires. In this case; as in all other cases, you need to
know the law yourself You learn it from other lawyers, other divorced fathers, groups or
associations of knowledgeable people, or simply putting in a few hours reading the law
itself
Some decisions are more likely to be unopposable than others. An award of
support is probably based on a formula that is set down by the state. There may be some
leeway in it, but the judge, unless he or she is inexperienced, has been adjusting it the same
way for many cases and will be hard to challenge. Custody awards are equally hard to
challenge, for the same reason.
Other decisions are more likely to be ignorable. Suppose you are ordered to leave
the house and all contents at the beginning of the divorce case. Once your wife has a
signed order, she can have the police enforce it, and have you removed. Until then, you
are in limbo. If the order is unbelievably unreasonable, as very many are, and it doesn't
even allow you to take a few pieces of furniture and kitchen equipment with you to use in
wherever you move to, you might be tempted to consider just taking what you need to
survive. You might be thinking that you would have to buy them for yourself now and
later when your common property is split up, you would get the old stuff anyway. You
ask yourself, "If I took the guest bed that is never used and the old set of kitchenware,
would I get sent to prison for forty years?"
If your ex-wife is something ofa monster, she might refuse to allow you to do it,
and if you did it anyway, or did it without telling her, she court go to court in a contempt
hearing to force you to return the items you took and to have you fined, However, a
Page 184 Version Date: May 29,1994 .
1:' ~! • i.'; "': ~'
.v

contempt citation is not likely to be obtainable ifwhat you did what reas()nably.calculat~
to help you make do in your new surroundings; and it didn't cause any:significant hardship
on your ex. The judge may simply ask her what she was trying to do, keeping you from a
minimal set of necessities. It might show off your ex-wife'sunreasonableness right at the
outset, perhaps putting you in a different light than the horrible statements that your ex
may have made about you.
What about visitation limits? For example, if you can't get your ex's agreement to
allow you to keep your children an extra day because your parents are coming to town
and they can't otherwise see the children, and you simply keep them, perhaps somewhere
out of the way so your ex can't have the police enforce her order, and you allow your
parents to be with the children, are you going to lose your visitation rights? Your ex can
try it, but she is likely to find that the judge or custody evaluator wonders what is the
matter with her. Ifwhat you do is a one-time transgression, which doesn't hurt anyone
except your ex's ego, and it benefits your children, your parents, or even yourself, you will
probably get away with it. Of course, there are always situations where the custody
evaluator simply hates you (in secret, of course) and is just looking for an excuse to whack
you. You have to use your own best judgment as to the attitude of the people involved.
Are they reasonable or basically hostile? .
What if the judge orders you to go to a counselor outside of the court system in
order to see if you can come to some agreement about visitation or custody with your ex?
If you think this is a stupid waste of time and money and simply want the judge to get
around to making a decision, you might think about refusing to go. Before you decide,
check to see if the judge actually has the authority to order you to do this. Each state has
its own rules about what a judge can order and what he (or she) cannot. Just because a
judge orders it does not mean that it is legally orderable. Judges make mistakes and
overstep their authority at times .. You need to know if yours has or not.
Other orders you might check on relate to financial payments. Suppose the judge
orders you to put your income tax refund in the hands of your ex-wife's attorney, for the
ostensible purpose of paying some bills you and your ex still owe from before the divorce
papers were filed. Perhaps he has the authority to do it, or perhaps he is bluffing you.
You don't want to do it because the attorney has a reputation for shadiness. You need to
verify that it is the law that a judge can do so. Perhaps it is the law only under certain
conditions, and they have not been fulfilled. Suppose you don't do it; then what does the
judge do? He can hold a hearing to compel you to do it, and you can object in court that
it is beyond legal authority. If he persists in threatening you, you can seek a writ from a
higher court. One writ that is sent down to a judge should be enough to make him think
twice about abusing his authority with you again.
However, you might find that the judge rules against you in all further decisions.
If some of those are unreasonable, you may have grounds for having all his decisions
thrown out on the grounds of bias. Judges get biased, but they are seldom called to task
for it. Perhaps you will be the first. The next judge you get, assuming you have the
original one removed from your case, may be very careful to treat you fairly.
The basic rule is, check the law for any order you don't think is reasonable before
you give up and accept it. Figure out if you are willing to take on the judge. Perhaps it
will simply be forgotten or ignored on purpose if it was an illegal order. Perhaps you will
 , 'OJ'

Version Date: May 29, i994 Page 185

have the fun of seeking a higher court review of the order. Either way, you need to be
prepared to do some extra work and maybe spending some extra money. It is clearly not
useful to do it unless there is something important to be gained, or if you have nothing
better to do.
Page 186, Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
KiDDSNo~ V~ionDate:May29, 1994 Page 187

Reconciliation --.:
"
Getting back together again is always a possibility if both people agree to it. The
problem is figuring out if you want it. You need to understand your almost-ex-wife's
motivations and character as much as you didn't before the marriage.

After being separated for a while, you or your spouse, whoever wanted the
divorce, may decide that being together wasn't all that bad, considering what the
alternatives are. Getting back together again is called reconciliation. It's not something to
be taken lightly.
The first choice to make is whether you want it or not. If you were the one to
seek divorce, what have you learned that makes you think you might want to go back? If
you opted for divorce because of some behavior of your spouse, what makes you think it
is going to change permanently? As a common example, if your spouse was cheating on
you, and you started a suit for divorce because you felt that was intolerable, why do you
think it's not going to happen again? If fidelity is important to you, and extramarital affairs
are important to your spouse, all you might be buying is another crushing disappointment.
It is not possible to change most people's behavior. Behavior comes from deep roots in
the subconscious. It can be changed temporarily under stress, and divorce is certainly
stressful. What this means is that reconciliation might mean another year or so of relative
marital peace, before the next affair destroys it again.
The other side of this coin is that affairs are not all that common. Perhaps your
spouse tried one and found it to be a stupid idea. Can you trust her if she claims this?
Have you been able to trust her before on important matters? Some women live to be
devious; if you have one of these as a spouse you might as well keep going-on with the
divorce or accustom yourself to finding somebody else's shoes under your bed.
Can you set up some agreement so that it would be possible for you to reassure
yourself? If your spouse was in the habit of being out evenings, under some excuse or
another, you could reconcile only with the agreement that she would not continue in those
practices. Perhaps you would agree to reconcile only if she changed her job so she wasn't
on the road continuously. Whatever the situation was that gave her the opportunity to
cheat on you easily and without detection, you could insist on it being changed. This
really gives only a partial defense against having to put up With more of the same. You
are making cheating harder to do, not impossible. If you are stuck with a devious,
cheating wife, she is not going to change her personality because of some agreement you
struck with her. She may just regard this as a challenge. The first part of the challenge
might be to lull you back into a complacent, self-assured stupor so that you are no longer
so suspicious. The second part of the challenge is to be more clever with the next affair.
Perhaps the only way you found out was that she told you about her latest affair in some
fit of honesty, because she thought it wouldn't mean anything to you. She may have
instantly realized her mistake and resolved never to tell you anything again.
If you are in such a situation, you need to realize what her standards were. The
fact that she expected that infidelity wouldn't mean much to you, something you could
shrug off, implies that infidelity doesn't mean much to her. To be more general, what she
 Versi~nDate:~Y 29. 1994 KiDDSNotes

assumes about your standards is a reflection of her own, hidden, internal standards. You
need to find out more about those standards, or else realize that you are never going to
know what they are -- all you'll hear is what she wants you to hear -- and so you need to
assume they are the worst possible. Then make a decision about reconciliation.
Other behavior patterns may have been the cause of your divorce. Did she spend
youpractica1ly into bankruptcy? This is easy to put a damper on. You make an
agreement that she is to have no checking account and no credit cards. If she can stick to
that, and you have no other real problems between you, the choice toward reconciliation is
easy.
Perhaps she left you for another man, and he ditched her. You can take her back,
but the marriage will never be the same. Betrayal is something not easily forgiven and less
easily forgotten. Are you the kind of person who always turns the other cheek? You may
have been asking for the betrayal by your failure to set standards for the marriage, always
forgiving whatever happened. You may have actually been the root cause of-the problem.
People like to know their boundaries, what is allowed and what is not. By not setting any
boundaries and taking any behavior as human and forgivable, you simply pushed the
boundaries further and further back so that she had to do something completely out of
character to get a real, natural, angry and emotional response out of you. Perhaps if you
hadn't been so placid, the tragedy might never have happened. You need to assess what is
the cause of it. Can you set limits? Can you be intolerant enough to give your spouse the
psychological feedback she needs to feel that you care about her behavior? If not, you
shouldn't be coupled with someone who needs to have limits set or who expects to see
emotional responses. There is no point in reconciling with someone with such different
emotional needs, ones that you cannot naturally fulfill without pretending tobehavior that
is riot your own.
Did you leave because she was a bad mother? You probably want to stay away.
Women who have deficient maternal instincts; because of wretched childhood experiences
or some other problem, are not likely to modify their natures. You may have to realize
that there is no hope of making your spouse into the kind of mother your children need.
You need to think through being a single father with custody, or, if the idiocy that passes
for divorce court makes another dreadful mistake and you wind up being a single father
with visitation and the mother without maternal instincts winds up being the full-time
custodial parent, and decide if that is a better situation than having a poor mother in the
house with you. In a two-parent marriage, it is certainly possible for you, the father, to
assume the majority of the parenting. If your ex is not only a poor mother, but a poor
. earner, you have a terrible choice. You do both sides of the marriage, she does neither,
and you see how long you can stand up under the strain and the inequity of the situation.
It may be worse than being a single parent.
Lastly, perhaps you want to do reconciliation as a tactical move. If the divorce is
going poorly for you, i.e., like many fathers, you are losing every decision because you are
not prepared and have been foolishly trusting, you may want to go back to the marriage
and recoup your strength and start the divorce again next year. It may sound
Machavellian, but when you are the victim of blind prejudice or your own honesty, you
take what you can get away with.
KiDDSNotes Page 189

Bad. News During

Divorce
Versionp~t~:~y?9~ 19.?4. KiDDS Notell,
".;. ~, ;.\t '.. ,,,"
."...> -' .' \. '. ',"; ".,,"!
KIDDSNotes V~ion Date: May 29, 1994 Page 191

A-Catalog of Crazy Ex-wlves ~C')r

Dealing with an ex-wife out of touch with reality adds to the troubles of divorce.
Means of recognizing such a situation and means of dealing with it are discussed.

Some men are fortunate. They go through life without running into snags, such as
divorce. Others are fortunate in a lesser way. They hit a divorce, but their ex is a
reasonable person, and together they work out custody and finances. .Others are
unfortunate.' Their ex-wife fights them on one or more grounds, and they have to spend
time doing battle in court for their rights. Way down at the bottom of the barrel, the
losers who have no luck at all, are the ones with crazy ex-wives. This section is about
some examples, and how to deal with them in the least bad way. There is no good way.
. One large group of crazy ex-wives are women who can't think logically. They are
ones to whom a discussion is a put-down, because they can't follow the thinking. They
get mad when asked to compromise, because they can't mentally do a calculation about
whether or not the compromise is in their interest or not. They assume it is not. Dealing
with these women can only be done through the courts. If you slipped up and married
such a woman and are in divorce with her, you must document every offer you make, and
each refusal. Some courts appreciate people trying to resolve differences, and you may'
find decisions going your way after you have enough evidence to support your claim.
Some of these crazy ex's have lawyers who get fed up with them, as they may assume their
lawyers are cheating them as well and cease cooperating. Lawyers are trained to think
logically and someone at the complete opposite end of the spectrum may be very
fiustrating to deal with. Then the struggle becomes a little easier as well, when their
lawyer is simply fed up with his client. Simply persevere.
Two big groups of women with more serious insanity exist: Those who are just
plain crazy and those that are crazy-hostile. Just plain crazy ones keep behaving strangely,
not necessarily in ways related to the divorce. The bad part is that they influence your
children. Some plain crazy ones are crazy because of substance abuse, which we all know
means they drink too much or use drugs. The recourse here is to get evidence of this,
bring it to court, and get custody with visitation restricted to supervised visits. This means
some official or court-approved monitor has to be present when she sees the children.
Often a judge will prescribe a treatment plan for the abuse as part of the visitation
agreement. You are helping your ex by doing this.
Other plain crazies are so because of something genetic or physiological. Some
lock themselves up in their houses. Some starve themselves like anorexics. Some are
paranoid. Some are catatonic, i.e., mute. If they do not hurt themselves or others in a
marked way, it is hard to deal with these women. Courts do not tend to interfere with
people who mind their own business and cause no trouble to others. Privately crazy
people get to stay that way. More often than not, women with these difficulties do not put
up a struggle to keep custody or visitation; some even realize they are disturbed. The
paranoiacs can take on a more difficult approach, and regard you as an evil force directed
against both them and the children. If your children are over the age of reason, and can
Page 192 V~io~pate:,~y 2,9, 1994;

understand that their mother needs help, the simplest tactic is to help them appear in court
and request that you have full custody,~:with;~hatever visitation to their mother they can
tolerate and desire. If they are too young for this, you need to have the court insist on a
psychological evaluation for custodial fitness. If you are correct about the paranoia, and
are smart enough to pick a competent evaluator and get the court to approve your choice,
his or her report should pave the way to custody.
Another plain crazy is the fantasizing woman, who cannot tell reality from
imagination. Paranoiacs are one branch of this, where the fantasies take on a common
theme of persecution. The rest just imagine what doesn't exist. Again; a highly competent
psychological evaluator can detect this trait. In order to have a psychological evaluation .
ordered by a divorce court, you would have to have a custody evaluator recommend it to
the judge. Only an open-minded mediator would be likely to be convinced of it. If you
have double trouble, a crazy ex-wife and a prejudiced custody evaluator who won't believe
in your .concerns and won't investigate such possibilities, you have a tough row to hoe. ,
You and your children will have to suffer a long time from your ex, with you documenting
the occurrences, before you have enough material to go over the head of the custody
evaluator, either to his or her supervisor or to the judge. Of course, your ex may agree to
a psychological evaluation. Convincing such a person that it is necessary would take a bit
of work, as it smacks of admitting incompetence. However, a mutual evaluation may be
acceptable, if her world view includes you being crazy or otherwise incompetent. If you .
don't get a very competent and unbiased psychological evaluator, you may get a neutral
recommendation, which is much worse than no evaluation. You have to overcome the
errors of the psychological evaluator as well as the prejudice of the custody evaluator,
your ex, and the judge. Choosing a psychological evaluator should be one of the highest
priorities in your dealing with a crazy ex.
The really difficult cases are the crazy-hostile. Sometimes this syndrome comes
from guilt. If your ex has wronged you, for example, she cheated on you after you had
been rock-solid faithful for years, she may be bothered by guilt for a while. Butthe mind
plays tricks on itself to eliminate such feelings. She may come to blame you for making
her do it, or to find such glaring faults in you that she begins to feel she had no choice but
to wrong you. This feeling can get so strong that your ex-wife comes to hate you for no
reason related to you, but because her own behavior and the guilt associated with it has
driven her to it in order to relieve her own conscience. This circular reasoning can take
several forms. One symptom is that she blows up over innocuous statements you make or
actions you take, and you never can predict what would cause any difficulty. Her mind is
looking for excuses to hate you and blame you for her actions, thereby relieving her
mental conflicts.
Another crazy-hostile behavior pattern comes from having a bad childhood. Some
women saw their parents battling, and developed an innate distrust for men. If you
managed to overcome this before marriage because you are an exemplary individual, you
may find that one day some trivial act you do causes her to flip you from exception to
example. You weren't really a nice person after all, but just sneakier than other men. You
are hateful, just like her father. If a woman hates her father, watch out. Someday you
may fill that role, symbolically, in her mind, and all the hatred that she had to suppress
toward him comes out toward you,
 ·,·Y{/T • .-'

KiDDS'No'u;s' Page 193

With these types of crazy-hostiles and other ones, there are several actions you
need to do in a divorce. The first is diagnosis. You need to figure out if she is one, or is
just suffering from too much stress or another minor malady. If she is crazy-hostile, then
you need to preserve yourself first so that you can be there for your children. You have to
stop trying to make deals with her -- it can't be done. You have to stop thinking there is
something that you did that caused a problem. There wasn't. The problem would have
bubbled to the surface no matter what you did. You have to realize that many crazy-
hostiles appear quite normal in most situations. They just have blind spots with respect to
the object of their self-induced hatred -~ that object is you. People will not appreciate
what you have to say, unless you are able to find other men Who have the same
experiences. Find some. Join a men's rights group or start one yourself. You need
somebody to talk to so you can share the anxiety that dealing with such a person induces.
Even a friend or two with this type of experience can help greatly.
Lastly, you have to be there for the children. Young ones may be used as pawns
by a crazy-hostile ex-wife in her desire to hurt you. If you love your children, she may
want to either turn them away from you, or emotionally hurt them so you will feel the pain
sympathetically. Children are able to get through this, but they need an immense amount
of love and attention. Reduce whatever other demands there are on your time and be
there with them. Talk to them. Do activities with them. Love them. Counsel them ..
Listen to them.
The worst situation is when a crazy-hostile has your children and denies or
interferes with your seeing them, and you are in a prejudiced divorce court. Bad as this is,
it is a frequent occurrence in modem day America. Persevere. Judges migrate out of
divorce court frequently. Wait for your chance. Build up contacts. Keep up the pressure
to see your children. Find some way to maintain contact, such as letters, telephone calls,
packages, relatives' visits, or whatever. Keep good records about visitation denial. Just
don't give up. With luck, one day you will be able to break loose from the barriers that
separate you from your children, and you can devote your time to healing them. If you are
successful, you can also devote some time to helping America fix its rotten situation.
Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
v.v . .' "
!.: , , : :",.' ':~.,:.;, l. I.' I ~".,'
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29; i994 Page 195

Dirty Tricks
The ways in which a vindictive ex-wife can hurt her husband, financially and
domestically, are numerous and significant. The husband can even be ordered to pay
for most of the cost of doing them through the vise of legal fees.·

Wives who don't work or who make significantly less than their spouses can have a
field day in court. The typical, almost invariable, response of the judge is to order the
husband to pay the wife's legal expenses. There is a superficial reason for this, something
like the one that spawned the concept of Public Defender. It is a fact that many legal
battles are completely decided on who has the greater resources for courtroom battles.
Everybody deserves a fair hearing in court, and if the husband had more money available,
he would hire a better lawyer and the wife wouldn't get a fair shake. That's the story that
is told.
The real story is that lawyers get up and do somersaults for joy when one of these
females comes into their office for a divorce. If the wife has some level of hatred for the
husband, or can be talked into it by the lawyer, using his practiced manners and
psychological erudition, he can hope to get carte blanche from the court to charge the
husband as much as he can possibly think of. The wife will do the requesting or
acquiescing, and the husband will pay the bills. If the husband has a middle-class income,
or owns anything substantial, we are talking many, many thousands of dollars. Judges
know this, because they were all lawyers before they became judges and sat around lawyer
convention luncheons and Bar meetings and lawyer get-togethers discussing how much
Mr. such and such, a divorce lawyer with the juicy prospect of a middle or upper class
husband and a mean and vindictive wife, expected to get. Perhaps they shared ideas on
how to run up bills by getting the wife to protest this and refuse that. The battle is all a
scam, in which the husband is a naive victim, about to get taken for everything.
A few lawyers object to this and will fight for the husband's rights. However, the
more fighting there is, the more the wife's lawyer bills the husband. If the husband
surrenders what the wife wants without fighting, he is just as broke. There is virtually no
way out of the divorce circus for a man married to someone who doesn't make much
money and bears him ill-will. Probably about one-fourth ofthe divorce cases are like this.
This makes it clear why half of the lawyers in America are family lawyers (meaning they
do divorce and a few other types of cases) and why the average income oflawyers is
around $150,000 a year.
A few judges are repelled by this blatant thievery, and refuse to allow the wife's
lawyer to bill ridiculous amounts to the husband. They are not in the majority, however.
Scrupulous judges, ones whose dignity and self-respect are offended by what goes on in
divorce court, usually manage to be transferred out of it quickly.
There are two levels of ex-wife hostility. One is where the ex-wife is interested in
getting everything she can from the divorce process, fairness be damned. The other one is
where she is mad at the ex-husband, and wants to see him suffer. There are lots of ways a
lawyer can arrange for this. Often the first feeling grows into the second.
 Page 196 Version Da~: May 29.1994 KiDDSNotes
,:. •• 'I •. , -.:. •

Ex-wives and their lawyers can arrange to hurt ex-husbands both financially and
domestically. First off: an ex-wife can run up unconscionable bills before the divorce
process starts, if she is the one to initiate it or sees it coming. If she buys personal goods,
such as jewelry, the court will not (we know of no cases) make her take it back or pay for
it herself Jewelry is a personal possession, like her underwear, and she gets to keep it, at
least at the outset. This leaves the ex-husband with unexpected bills. Ifhe has money of
his own, he can payoff these bills, but he should not expect to get any of it back. If the
couple has money that they kept together, the ex-wife can take that out first. If that can't
be done easily, as for example, if it is in an account requiring both signatures for a
withdrawal, the lawyer can freeze the assets. These assets can remain in there as the bills
remain unpaid, putting pressure on the ex-husband. He mayor may not appreciate what is
happening to his credit rating and make an offer to the other side to buy his way out of it.
If he doesn't understand what a problem destroyed credit is until it is too late, when he has
no credit left, he will then realize how badly his wife has hurt him.
As noted elsewhere, if the couple owned a house, the wife, who almost always "-
gets custody of the children initially, gets to live in the house. When the ex-wife gets the
. house, what does the husband get? Usually his clothes is all. Does the court take into
account that he will have to purchase enough to allow him to survive in wherever he
winds up? We have never once seen that happen.
What about child care? If the husband presses for some custody, the ex-wife's
lawyer may advise her to grant him a bit, but it has to include. a chunk of his work hours.
He has to find child care. Shedoesn't. He has to pay for it. She doesn't. The inequity of
this doesn't seem to ever penetrate the cerebrum of the normal divorce judge. If the ex-
wife releases some precious custody time, her lawyer may insist on a payment for it. A
blatant request for cash for kids doesn't go over well, but the husband may have to agree
to some higher payments of some sort. Since the kids weren't hers to dole out anyway,
but were just given into her custody by the bigots in the custody evaluation office, it may
seem unfair that the ex-husband has to pay for their release like a kidnapper's ransom. On
the other hand, if she won't agree, he has to go to court and plan on a battle, expensive
and uncertain, which can be delayed and delayed by an entire deck of lawyer devices.
Other financial cannons blowing holes in the ex-husband's finances include paying
for special medical, dental, optical, or psychological expenses of the children in full.
During negotiations, she (or her lawyer) won't agree they are necessary, so if the husband
wants to do what is best for the children he can either pay and shut up or else play Russian
roulette in court. In court she will insist they are necessary, but she cannot pay for them
on the meager living the court has allowed her. Either way the ex-husband has a good
chance of paying them, either completely or some large fraction of them. Even though the
ex-husband is already paying the ex-wife piles of money already, the ex-wife does not see
it as equitable that they split costs. Neither does the judge. Then comes transportation. If
there are significant costs involved, the ex-husband often has to do it. How about the
family car? Because the children have to be transported safely, give the best one to the
ex-wife until the final settlement, when its value will have diminished. There is simply no
end of financial tricks that a highly-paid lawyer with little to do can dream up, especially
since he and his colleagues share the choicest ones.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29~'1994 Page 197

Domestic tricks are worse. Everybody knows denial of visitation is standard

practice by ex-wives who hate their ex-husbands. Everybody knows nothing is ever done
about it. Did some choice possessions of the husband disappear? She says he took them.
He knows he didn't. The judge can't tell. So goes the old saying, possession is nine-tenths
of the law. Business and personal records disappeared? Who knows what happened?
She says he is making it up to attempt to cover up something or to make her look bad
before the court. He doesn't say anything because he has no proof of anything. What
about his reputation? Did her lawyer tell her to ask her ex's business colleagues if they
knew anything about his a) philandering, b) molesting, c) hiding assets, d) violence, e)
perjury, t) any other concocted story or did she think it up herself?
Why go on and on; the point is made. Husbands aretreated worse than criminals
in court. Criminals have rights and a whole army of criminal lawyers to see that they get
them. Husbands simply do not. They are regarded as simply a cookie jar for lawyers and
ex-wives to plunder with the only limitation"being the creativity of the lawyers. It would
be nice if it were possible to end this diatribe with some statement that divorce decisions
are getting better. They are not. They are getting worse., Almost no one is doing
anything to stop the trend. Men, both ones in the process of divorce and victims of an
earlier divorce, seem to want to continue to suffer rather than protest. And so they will.
Much of the exploitation of men and the savageness of divorce court would be
ended iflawyers for 'impoverished' ex-wives in divorce court were paid for out of Public
Defender funds rather than from the husband's income or family assets. There would be
less incentive for long courtroom battles and no way a vicious ex-wife could vent so much
hatred in court. Other countries have discovered this and adopted this plan. But in the
United States, we are talking about dissolving a multi-billion dollar industry. That adds up
to a lot of campaign contributions.
Page 198 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
KiDDSNotes Page 199

A man who is accused by his wife of violence against her can expect to be
railroaded in court and lose almost all access to his family and his assets immediately.
There is some possibility of defense, but the real solution to this is public awareness.

Some divorces start with a nuclear bomb. A husband can have no idea that
anything unusual is happening in his marriage, and then within twenty-four hours he can be
out on the street with nothing but the clothes on his back.
If a wife decides to end her marriage, and to get everything from it that she can,
there is a set of tricks that she can pull that leaves her husband devastated and with little
chance of ever setting the record straight. This class of tricks is well beyond what
someone would call dirty tricks, which only impoverish the husband. They are rotten
tricks. They damage his reputation.
The process involves taking advantage of what everyone knows is true. Everyone
knows men beat their wives. In actuality, there are a few that do, but the huge majority
wouldn't dream of it. But since everybody knows it happens, they are predisposed to
believe a wife when she complains about it. Judges and other court personnel are just as
likely to be taken as anyone else.
To make this work, the wife has to find a lawyer with no scruples whatsoever,
which is not hard to do in any populated area. She could explain to him that she wants to
go for every advantage in the divorce. The lawyer advises his client, a wife and mother, to
accuse her husband of beating her. If she has found a real expert at rotten tricks, he may
advise her to stage a confrontation.
If she elects to stage such a drama, she could start by doing something to make her
husband mad. After a woman been married a while, she probably knows how to do that.
She breaks something important of her husband's; she takes his money; she buys
something extravagant; she insults him; she tells him she has been with another man. He
gets mad; maybe he yells; maybe he storms out of the house. If she doesn't want to go
through with this sort of provocation, she can simply make up a story that doesn't
contradict obvious facts.
Second, she calls the police and accuses her husband of hurting her. Herclaim
could be totally fabricated, or it may have some slight tangential connection with the
confrontation. Maybe she stood in front of him and blocked his way out -- to the police
she says he pushed her violently. She could say he threw something at her, or threatened
her with a kitchen knife. If she has a bruise anywhere, her case is likely to be quite solid,
but even without one the ruse works. The bruise merely makes the trick much harder to
defend against in court.
Third, her lawyer files a request for a temporary restraining order in court,
simultaneously with the initial divorce filing, requesting that the court have the husband
removed from the house on the grounds of his immediate danger to the wife. The lawyer
can add whatever embellishments to the request that are necessary, such as the wife's
claims of prior occurrences of the husband's violence. If her lawyer has had experience in
doing this, and knows the judge's predilections, he knows just what to add. These
Page 200 Version Date: May 291 1994 KiDDSNotes
,:.~ .. .

additions can have some connection with reality, for example, they could simply add a
violent act or threat to some quarrels that actually happened. This court filing can be done
without the husband being informed of it in advance and the order can be immediately
granted to protect the wife. He doesn't learn of it until a police officer or a process server
hands him the court order. Under its terms, the husband must stay away from the house
and from his wife and children until he has a chance to go to court and defend himself
When the husband arrives in court, he finds himself the object of scorn. Here's
another brutal man. Out he goes permanently, rules the judge, and the house is virtually
turned over to the wife, along with the kids, the furniture, a car, and virtually everything in
the house. To overcome this, the husband can present evidence to prove he didn't do
anything to the wife, with some small chance of success. But so what. He's not going to
be allowed back in the house ifthere is any faint chance of violence. We have ajait
accompli. Judges do not put husbands back in houses. They do not want to be accused
of being the cause of another woman being hurt.
When the husband gets his wits together and gets some good advice, he realizes
that he is facing a triple whammy. The house is only the first stage. The second stage
involves the children. The wife is busily building up the case for custody, on the ruse of
stability, as well as to protect them from a violent father. The court's standard dicta will
say "The kids are with her now, they are safe, they are adjusting to the changes, so why
disrupt them again?" She's settled in the house with the kids, and what judge would be so
crazy as to move her out so he can move in? This would get him in the judges' version of
the Guinness book of records.
Lastly, the wife claims she needs money to pay for the house and kids' expenses,
even if she has a good job. So the husband gets his income chopped down to a fraction of
what it was before the blow-up. In a typical situation, the husband can't afford to do much
legally, as legal contests take huge amounts of money that the average man cannot afford.
He has to establish new living arrangements, and will likely be saddled by alimony, child
support, his wife's lawyer's fees, a fraction of the mortgage, child care costs, medical and
dental expenses and anything else the court can think of to hit the brutal pig with.
There is no opposite number to this tactic. Women do not beat men, at least in
inexperienced or sexist people's viewpoints". Women do not get ordered out of their
houses.
Preventing such scams is not easy. A man's best means of defense against some
legal cad putting his wife up to these rotten tricks is to establish his own good reputation
and to establish good character references, i.e., close friends who would be aware of any
difficulty that would occur in the house. They should be willing to testify that there has
never been any violence in the house, that the husband is a very peaceful person, that he
has never expressed any intention of attacking his wife, and, if they are familiar with her,
that the wife is cunning and devious. If possible, at the first moment that marriage
difficulties occur, a husband can start shopping for a lawyer. He should be looking for a
fighting lawyer who can oppose this type of exclusion order on the grounds of insufficient
evidence. He should also make sure he has enough resources available to pay the initial
costs of this legal defense.

22 Statistics show domestic abuse is committed approximately equally by both genders.

 Vermon Date: May 29,1994 Page 201

Most men don't do this. They simply give up and make the best of the bad
situation. Perhaps, if enough men did stand up to these rotten tricks, judges would begin
to be more aware of them, or the public would demand that the courts put an end to their
female tilt.
Faced with this situation, as in many others of exploitation and prejudice, an
individual man can do little in most cases. He can spend a lot and fight and perhaps
prevail in his own case. But the majority of men will not be able to. However, if a men's
rights organization began taking names of the shyster lawyers who do these tricks and
publicizing them in the media or complaining of them to the state bar, or of using their
reputations in court to discredit this type of claim, some of them could be put out of
business and unable to destroy innocent men's reputations. Once again, such abuses of
justice occur because the setting allows it. Working to eliminate sexist preferences in
courts would also work to eliminate any presumptions that husbands are violent if the wife
accuses them of it.
Page-202<; Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
,.~.~"
..•.
 .',J ,.

KiDDSNotes Vetsio~ Date: May 29, 1994 Page 203

Getting put injail is not a good way to win at divorce court or to help your
children. There are several ways that men can be set up by ex-wives, and several ways
to protect against it. Be prepared.

Some women are bound to compete and excel. Nice ones compete at social
graces. Ambitious ones compete at their careers. Vicarious ones compete through their
children. Vicious ones compete at destroying their ex-husbands.
Having an ex-husband falsely arrested for assault is a trick that many women like
to use. It can be done with some skill and talent, especially when it comes to giving
testimony in the best tradition of Vanessa Redgrave. Different roles can be played here, '.
with an eye toward the audience of one: a judge already predisposed to applaud the ..
performance.
That is actually pretty mild stuff compared to what some women have done. They.
weren't satisfied with simply ruining their ex's life, and found a way to put their ex's into
the penitentiary. They certainly proved to their husbands what a mistake they made in not
making their marriage a dream zone for the woman.
There are two crimes that a man might easily be tricked into appearing to commit.
One is kidnapping. Suppose that a man gets a chance to take a vacation, and asksi his ex-
. wife if he can bring the children. It's not his custody schedule, which might be pretty puny
and has no flexibility built in. Instead of going back to court, paying hundreds oflawyer
dollars to have a revision in visitation approved, and waiting for the court to sign off on it,
he might just ask his ex-wife ifhe could just do it. "Sure, you can," she replies. A few
days after he has left with his children there is a knock on his motel or cabin or tent pole.
It's a squadron of police with guns. He's handcuffed in front of his children and hauled off
to jail, charged with kidnapping. The children are too little to appreciate what has
happened to their father. Unfortunately for Dad, the court has tied up all his liquid assets
so he cannot retain an expensive criminal lawyer and has to rely on the Public Defender.
Public Defenders are lawyers doing time in court while they wait for an opportunity for a
private practice or a slot at a prestigious law firm to open up. While some of them are
diligent and interested in the cases they defend, many are simply burned out by the parade
of petty criminals that they have to attempt to defend. So the result is bad news for the
ex. The number of men who are tricked into being victims of kidnapping charges is not
small.
Another crime is rape. If the ex-wife invites the ex-husband back into the conjugal
nest for a supposed reconciliation, and then cries rape, the case will turn into a situation
where the jury has to decide whom to believe. If the ex-wife can be convincing enough,
the ex-husband can find himself in the state pen; rubbing shoulders with America's
formerly most wanted. Of course, the real coup de grace for this charge, as for the
kidnapping one, is to do this while the court has tied up the ex-husband's money, or the
court has already sucked that well dry so that he has none. Rape trials can turn on very
little evidence. There is physical evidence of the sexual acts, but sex can be consensual or
Pag~294 KiDDSNotes

not. Whether the ex-wife consented becomes. the paramount question, and if the husband
has no evidence that shedidhemayfind.hlmself doing time> ,: <,
There are obvious' ways for an ex-husband to protect himself, but in the actual
examples that inspired this section, the ex-husbands involved were trusting, even naive.
They trusted their ex-wives at what they said, despite the fact that they were in the middle
of a divorce conflict. Never trust an ex-wife when your personal freedom is at stake. If
the ex-wife agrees to a modification of the vacation schedule, put it in writing and get her
to sign it.
One common ploy used by wives to avoid making any commitment like this is to
say that her lawyer told her not to sign anything without him reading it. Then they don't
get it to the lawyer and time passes until deadlines approach. She claims that the lawyer
hasn't gotten back to her but she'll haveit signed by the time the vacation is over. Forget
about going without it! Have your lawyer contact her lawyer. Write her lawyer a certified
letter yourself describing the custody change. .
There are other ways of self-protection. Telling other people and getting them to
be witnesses is one. Write down the schedule and send a copy via certified mail to some
safe third party. Send a letter to the court stating you will be unavailable during the
vacation period and that your ex has agreed to allow you to take them for a certain period.
Make absolutely sure you return on time. If an unavoidable occurrence occurs, such as
your car breaking down, call the third party witnesses, the lawyers, or someone else.
Don't trust to your ex-wife's good intentions or reasonableness.
If an ex-wife agrees to a reconciliation and implies sex is involved, inform any
lawyers involved, don't just go over to her house (probably your old house) and try to get
something started. Tell your friends what your intentions are. In other words, get
somebody and something that can be used as evidence in case the worst of all abominable
tricks gets played out. Never ever threaten her, even in your maddest moments, say after
she has perjured herself in court and done you out of custody, most of your income, most
of your property, and maligned your reputation. Say nothing that anyone could interpret
as implying violence. Never say anything to a third party that could imply you might be
violent. Just always keep in mind that criminal prosecutors can make mountains out of
molehills. Don't give them any ammunition to shoot you with.
Milder charges exist, like theft. Could she give you something and then report it
as stolen? Possible. Tell someone and put it in writing. How about contempt? Did she
say you could come over to pick up something when you had an injunction against your
coming to her residence? Go over with someone else who can check with her before you
come onto the property. Always protect yourself
KIDDSNotes Page 205'

Sleazy "Tricks, .-~-,',/ ..~.~~....

:...~-, r")
:
;

Falsely charging a father with molestation of his child is a new and despicable
tactic in divorce court. It is often successful. as every card in the deck is stacked
against a father in this situation. Prevention is hard to do. The system must change.

An unscrupulous ex-wife can cause a great deal of difficulty for her ex-husband by
accusing him of violence against her. She can typically, on the strength of her accusation,
have him barred from their home and their children, and require him to go to great lengths
to defend himself against these charges. Expenses can be in the multiple thousands.
Another level of accusation involves charges of physically abusing a small child, typically
one oftheir own .. This is also difficult for a man to defend against, as small children are
wholly unreliable witnesses. Regrettably, this type of accusation is becoming more
common as more women and lawyers realize that there is little chance that there will be
any negative result coming from such charges. In other words, even when the charges are
disproved, there is still some gain to the accuser and almost no chance of losses.
A more recent variant of this escapade involves the mother prepping a small child,
usually a daughter, to complain that her ex-husband sexually molested her during custody
or visitation. Even if there is no physical evidence, it is usually possible for the mother's
lawyer to find a cooperative expert psychologist to listen to the little girl's story and help
her confirm it. With a cooperative judge, the testimony of such an expert, even if
contradicted by a host of other experts and in the absence of any evidence, the father is
deprived of contact with his children, except perhaps under supervised visitation.
Furthermore, supervised visitation may be turned into a nightmare by the social workers in '
charge of it.
This means, with a climate of bias in the courtroom, that a man accused of
molestation has little to gain by holding out for the truth. Either way, he is going to be
deprived of contact with his child. If he contests the charges, he is going to be sad1led
with large legal fees, and has virtually zero chance that he will be compensated for his
expenses and trouble in any way. With a chances like this, it is no wonder that most men
giv.e up and just opt for survival. They plea bargain and agree to state that some sort of
molestation occurred and then agree to long periods of therapy or counseling treatments.
In return, they and their child are not subjected to a additional horror and expense of a
public trial. After this admission, the road back to a normal relationship is virtually
impossible. Any chance of custody is eliminated. The ex-wife has won, at little or no cost
to herself, and with little or no danger for her.
The other option, trying to disprove a molest claim, is difficult. It is also
debilitating. There are men's groups that specialize in providing support and reassurance
to men confronted with such false allegations. They also serve as to recommend
specialist lawyers who deal with such charges.
Since there is no witness to any action except an impressionable child, defense
often depends on competing expert witnesses and character witnesses. The child typically
is cut off from contact from her accused father, and is complete and total control by his or
her mother. Mom can use her time to repeat to her daughter whatever programming she
Page 206 Version DateMay 29,1994 .

wants to. The mother may even come to believe in the charges herself, if she does not
understand how little children repeat whatever they think the important adult in their life
wants them to.
Psychologists can make the father's life more difficult. It is quite clear to everyone
capable of reading a newspaper that little children are often victims of a legal system that .
tries to extract lynching testimony out of them. The nation has been treated to the
spectacle of several huge trials about daycare personnel accused of similar actions, most of
which eventually were dismissed or otherwise terminated without the charges being
affirmed. Even when the children repeated totally absurd and ridiculous charges, ones that
can not be true, the cases were not dismissed but continued onto their eventual
conclusions of innocence. However, the daycare centers were financially destroyed and
the lives of the accused forever tainted. Similarly, in individual cases initiated by mothers
in divorce, molest charges are often used by judges to cut men off from their children, not
.only for the period of the trial, but permanently afterward. Even if disproved or dismissed,
such allegations often lead to legal costs well exceeding those of normal divorces.
The possibility of false molest charges does not stop when the child is older. Older
children who absorb their mother's hatred for their father can also playa role by giving
false testimony. They may pick uptheir mother's idea that their father is evil incarnate,
and come up with the idea oflying about him as revenge against what their mother tells
them he did to hurt her or them, in their early lives.
The strength of public disgust with such crimes is such that a man who is simply
accused ofit by an angry ex-wife is met with a climate of hostility in many courtrooms. If
a psychologist can be found who is willing to state she believes in the child's story, there is
little that can be done to erase such impressions from the minds of the judge and the
custody evaluators, as well as other personnel involved, including the ex-husband's own
lawyer. He may have second thoughts about working very hard to obtain sole or joint
custody of the daughter for the father. This phenomena of isolation is well known to
vulture lawyers, who can assist their clients in dragging their ex-husbands into the
quicksand of an molest charge. It means much larger fees, in trade for the last shred of
conscience. It provides a much better chance of assuring custody and all the huge
financial benefits associated with it.
If these charges are leveled, there is little that an individual can do in his own
defense. Professional representation, by an experienced molest charge lawyer, is almost
. always required. This means that there may be little financial possibility of doing anything
else in the divorce case itself. It may also mean that the father is totally emotionally
exhausted by the affair, perhaps depressed as well. It is certainly a test of how strong a
father's love for his child is. Fathers who do not give up when hit with false molest
charges demonstrate the most incredible endurance and strength.
With a possibility as horrible as this in divorce, prevention should be on every
father's mind. To protect himself against such charges, any father needs to first avoid any
action that a child could mention to anyone else which could be misinterpreted as a
molestation. These actions include such innocuous activities as bathing his child or
allowing him or her to see the father undressed. Having a companion around during
visitation during the initial times of divorce accusations is also useful as a defense.
. I
 Version'Date: May 29, 1994 Page 207

What can be done to stop this terrible epidemic from spreading? It is financially
beneficial for both ex-wife and her lawyer, with virtually no negative consequences. It is
another of the horrible consequences ofthe prejudices that society has against fathers and
for mothers. One is that a mother has an advantage in that our culture naturally suspects
men of these crimes, but does not suspect women. Women who molest are not taken
seriously, unless the crimes are unmistakable and the woman has done something stupid
such as physically abuse the child in detectable ways as well as molestation. Secondly, as
long as there is a huge financial advantage to be gained by an ex-wife in divorce, ways will
be devised to obtain them, legal, ethical, moral and illegal, unethical, immoral. By
eliminating the prejudice that gives women money for custody, and replacing our feudal
divorce laws with ones that respect property rights and do not impose a private welfare
burden on a non-custodial parent, one of the main impetuses for these charges will
disappear. Our society has created a system of discrimination, and women simply exploit
it. The laws need to be changed.
Another variant of the false molest charge is more worrisome. If the father is
falsely charged with child molestation by a mother who brainwashes their child into
believing it, he has to wony about his own future and his own relationship with his child.
However, if molestation actually has happened, and may recur, he has to worry that his
child's life will be destroyed. Molestation ofa child can have tremendous effects on the
future of the child victim, leading to a much higher probability of all problems, including
such horrors as running away, child prostitution, becoming a sex offender later in life,
suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, mental breakdown, and others.
When a father is accused of child molestation of a young child, and it is confirmed
by a psychologist, the father needs to think about what that confirmation means.
Confirmation by a psychologist for young children includes observing that one or more of
several behavioral changes has occurred, the child has knowledge of sexual matters far in
excess of normal for its age, he or she acts out sexual acts with other children or with
dolls, and other behavior. The vast majority of the testing serves to find out if molestation
has occurred. The identification of the perpetrator of the acts of molestation is more
difficult, and may only involve asking the child, who could be reluctant to reveal the true
identity of the molester. If the child knows that the mother loves her boyfriend and is
terrified that his or her mother's second relationship will be broken up if he or she confirms
that it is this person who has done it, the child may identify the father. This is especially
true if the mother has worked to destroy the relationship with the father, has exhibited
hate for him, has condemned him for other hateful acts, or behaved in other ways that
make the child believe that father is an evil person or is a good target for blaming for
anything that happens. This means that while the father is prohibited from seeing his child,
or if permitted to have contact under supervised visitation rules, is prohibited from talking
to his child about anything that might be related to the abuse, it could still be going on.
The perpetrator could be still living with the child and biding his or her time until the
molestation investigation is over.
This scenario is not unlikely. All data indicate that sexual abuse of a child is
almost never done by the biological father, and most often by far, occurs while the child is
Page 208 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
, .

in a mother-headed households' ,24. The molestation is usually not committed by the

mother, although that does happen with boys, but often by someone whom the mother
brings into the house. Deprived ofthe real father's protection, the child is virtually
defenseless against someone the mother allows to be around.
What can a father in such a situation do? If the court has been successful in
depriving him of all financial resources that he could use for his own defense, as often
happens, he is not likely to be able to afford the services of a trained psychologist who
could work to determine who the real culprit is and bring an end to the molestation. His
only hope might be to find a child protection service worker who is not yet burned out and
is willing and able to do the proper investigation. This is a long shot. This is one time that
he might call on whatever resources his relatives can provide, if they have not already been
asked to do what they can. If he has the capability and the emotional strength to do it, he
could begin a self-education program in the area of child sexual abuse and prepare for the
cross-examination of the psychologists who are going to testify about the abuse. Either he
can work with his lawyer to prepare for it, or.if in pro per, to do it himself. Perhaps he
will find he is lucky enough that the psychologist is willing to admit the weakness of his or
her identification of the molester and return to the investigation to find out who it truly
was. Otherwise, the victimized child is possibly in for a life of hellish problems. In this
situation, as in so many others, the maternal bias of our courts is so destructive of children
that it is a wonder how any human beings can stand to serve in it.

23 Bagley, Christopher and Kathleen King, "Child Sexual Abuse", Tavistock/Routledge, London and New
York, 1990.
24 Wurtele, Sandy K. and Cindy L. Miller-Perrin, "Preventing Child Sexual Abuse", University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London, 1992.
KiDDSNotes Page 209

Police Actlons
Police play multiple roles in divorce cases. You need to know whim to involve
them and if they get involved at your ex's instigation. you need to know how to react.
Never ever provide a pretext for further charges.

Police, as the strong arm of the legal system, playa role in most stages of divorce.
They can be involved if your wife beats on you or accuses you of doing it to her. They
can be involved in forcing you to leave the house if the court gives your wife an order to
have you excluded. They can be called in if you find telltale signs of abuse on your
children or if they tell you about being hurt by your ex. They can be called on to enforce
injunctions you or she might obtain against the .other. They can be called on to enforce a
custody order or a visitation order. Theywill respond to allegations of crimes. They will
start the process of finding your children if your ex-wife disappears with them. In short,
you can expect them to be waiting in the wings all through the time that there is
contention between you and your ex.
Expect to find three groups of police officers. One includes those men, or even
women, who have been through a divorce, maybe with a crazy spouse, who can
sympathize with what you are being put through .' They may have lost their house and life
savings and access to their children and, even though they can't help themselves, they are
not going to make life any worse for you than they have to. .;
The second group are those who feel women and children need to be protected
from guys like you. They see themselves as the brave bulwarks against depraved
individuals. It doesn't register with them that women can destroy a child's emotional life
willingly and that you deserve some cooperation in stopping that.
The third group is bored with the whole rigmarole and just wants to get through
the day. Domestic quarrels are often the messiest part of police work, and the less of
them the better. Whatever is easiest to do gets done. When interacting with a police
officer, try figuring out which group he or she belongs to. Act accordingly.
If you are involved in a domestic quarrels, be careful never to do anything violent
to your wife, no matter what wretched provocation she pulls on you. Just regard it as a
lesson in human nature. You never expected her to behave this way, so now open your
eyes and wake up. Let it be a motivating factor in the next months in which the divorce
struggle goes on. Get mad and do something, but do it legally, not physically.
, If you are onjoint custody or visitation, and the ex is not where she is supposed to
be with the children for a pickup, you can ask that a policeman come to the house to assist
you with the transfer. If you were a woman, they would be there in an instant. Being a
man, they mayor may not agree to come. If they will, you have a witness to possible
contempt of a court order. Ask that they write up a report -- maybe they will. You can
pick it up the next day.
If you have an injunction against your wife coming to your house, and you find out
that she is doing it, you can ask that the police stop her. They might respond if you get
some advance notice of it. You can call them if you are there. You can instruct a baby-
sitter to call them. Don't expect that your children will call them, even if they are
Page 210 VersionDate: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

teenagers and are home alone. They are her children and may just be so awed that they
invite her into your house; you might find your records and other data have been
completely compromised. You need a locked file cabinet or a locked bedroom.
The use of police by your ex to enforce a visitation order may be nothing more
than a scam. It serves your ex-wife in several ways. It embarrasses you in front of your
neighbors; they might wonder why the police have to show up again and again. Since the
police are more motherhood protectors than anything else, it probably doesn't occur to
them that they are the dupes of your ex. In those pleasant little cities where there are
many more police than crimes, it gives them something to do other than ride around in
their squad cars for the whole patrol. It also makes your ex feel important. Instead of
seeming like astupid nuisance, with the police as an audience she feels important. Maybe
the presence of the policeman or men will unnerve you and make it harder for you to insist
on the details of the court order. Police presence typically means nothing good for you
when you have custody. .
The worst situation is when your ex decides to use police power to enforce her
visitation order. A scenario goes like this. Ex-wife has a valid visitation order and.
engages a policeman to come help her enforce it. The child does not want to go to see the
a
mother, because she is boring, abusive, filthy housekeeper, interferes with homework, or
any of a number of reasons important to the child. Instead of acceding to the child's
wishes, and doing something useful like going to clean her house, mom tells the police to
enforce the order. In some jurisdictions, the policeman will enter your home, search for
your child, and upon finding her (or him), say, hiding in a closet or under the bed, will
drag the child out of the house and shove her into the mother's car.
Yes, this happens! It is hard to believe that some police departments will be so
abusive toward a child, but it happens. Other departments will refuse to do this, and will
restrict their actions to writing up a report on what happens. Since the refusal of a child to
see a mother is not really what they expect to see, the report will likely not get written up.
It is even worse in a situation where you are not there, and your latchkey child or baby-
sitter has to deal with a uniformed bully walking around with a loaded gun and baton,
appearing like a vision out of a grade B horror movie. It is hard to imagine what the
police chiefs who permit this to occur think of -- do they expect that their men's behavior
will enhance the reputation of the police in anyone's eyes except that of the sick mother
who orders it? It is bad enough that they show up and intimidate you and your children.
Physical force against children is simply not called for.
If this happens to you, you need to protest. Write a letter to the newspaper.
Contact your nearest men's rights group. Try to get the police policy changed. If your
child is subjected to maximum force, take some pictures of the brave policeman dragging
your child out from under the bed. Use flash to get the horrified expression on your
child's face. Send the picture to the newspaper. Send it to the mayor. Send it to your
state legislators. Maybe if you have a video camera you can make an even more dramatic
case, by contacting a local TV station and showing the people who pay taxes for this type
of action just what they are buying for their money. It will wake up a few people as to the
biases often held by the men in blue.
A particular nasty item is when your ex accuses you of a crime, assault, child
abuse, kidnapping or something even more novel, and sends around the police to have you
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29. 1994 .

arrested. She may schedule the complaint so the arrest happens in front of your children.
Of course, you have to submit. Don't make any motions that would cause you to come
into physical contact with the officers. Be totally passive. Even the most minor action on
your part can result in the brave officers charging and convicting you of resisting arrest. .
Then you have a criminal record, which furthermore indicates you are a violent person.
Whoosh! There goes your custody or visitation rights. When the police are around, just
sit or stand somewhere quietly, talk to them calmly to let them know they have been made
fools of, and follow any orders that they give you. Acting otherwise is just playing into
your ex-wife's hand.
Page,212 Version Date: May 29;, 1994
" f:.'., ••.• -.•...
"".'; '.'~' ,- .' .-'
'r'
.
KiDDS Notes .,
• _.',.1. '_.' ~. _.!,k~~<
KiDDSNotes Versio~ Date: May 29,1994 Page 213

Pa.ying For It All

~age214 Version Date: ¥aY 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
.....
 . ,~ I t·..,···. •
Version DateiMay 29,1994 Page 215

. !

A middle-class divorce may result in the ex-wife living on a form of welfare. The
debilitating effect of that on the woman and the cruelty of imposing it on the man
imply the custom should be terminated immediately.

The lazier a life the ex-wife has had, the less education she bothered to get, the
worse jobs she had (none is best), the less resources she put together to help herself: the
more incompetent she is, the more her ex-husband will be ordered to pay in order to
support her. If you thought America's welfare scheme was a tacky mess, designed by a
government idiot, that promoted dependency, unwed children, broken families and worse,
wait till you see what divorce welfare is like.
The main theme is from the feudal era: a woinan gives up her independent life to
become the helpmate (nice old word) of the husband and supports him in his career. In
other words, she takes care of his home, has his children, satisfies him sexually, and .
relegates her role in life in order to encourage his. One can put a more cynical slant on it.
A woman sees a guy with a good job, latches onto him, enjoys him sexually, has some kids .
that she wanted anyway, stays home a lot rather than doing anything stressful, and lives off
his money instead of going out competing for her own. When the situation is expressed in
a more blunt way like this, it is not at all clear why an ex-wife should be given a lion's
share of an ex-husband's earnings following a marriage break-up. Maybe years ago, when
women did not work, this idea had some merit. Now it is only a self-serving excuse
enabling middle-class women who got married so they could live an easy life to get
divorced and continue to live an easy life.
The complaining of women makes this seem all unreal. After a divorce, a woman's
living standard sometimes drops. This is a silly way to state the obvious. A blunt
description of the situation is that during a marriage, such a woman's living standard is
artificially raised, to a level well beyond what her capabilities would provide, by a man
who loves her. When that love ceases, whatever the cause, and the marriage terminates,
her living conditions would revert to her former level were it not for the intervention of .
the courts, carrying out the rules of the state legislators.
What does this phony increase in her post-marital living standard accomplish in the
long run? Just as welfare undermines the desire of its recipients to change their lives, to
better themselves, and to become self-sufficient, so does divorce welfare. It undermines
women's careers by providing, for a large fraction of women with spouses with middle-
class incomes, a way to live without the stress and strain that working women take on. It
helps maintain the fiction that women cannot compete with men in the marketplace. It
maintains the opinion of men that women are second-class creatures. It gives example to
young women that a quick and easy way to wealth and ease is through cosmetics and
fashion. It adds to the unfair burdens borne by men who have to produce much more than
their share of the nation's wealth.
Welfare has a very important and justifiable purpose in providing a temporary
respite so that someone who suffers job loss, incapacity through medical problems, family
problems, or other difficulties can get back to being self-supporting. So might also
 Version pate: May 29, .1994 KiDDSNotes
',+'- ., ~ ,t..... '0," ".

divorce welfare provide a temporary respite to a woman who was caught by divorce at an
inconvenient time, when she-was pregnant, ill, between jobs, or otherwise. It might be
needed for a year or so, just as normal welfare is.
A good question, however, is why the ex-husband should be responsible for the
temporary support .. If the reason the ex-wife is temporarily incapacitated relates to the
marriage, for example, pregnancy, it is logical that the ex-husband should bear at least part
of the burden of supporting her until she is able to return to work. Other reasons may not
be so compelling. Cases that revolve around perpetual incapability caused by a woman's
failure to prepare herselffor a career are not the doing of the ex-husband. If the state
deems it necessary that she be supported, the state should do so. Of course, voluntary
support given out of love or sympathy is not affected by this, and couples that stay good
friends after separation may create such a situation if they desire. On the other hand, if the
love that created the marriage is terminated by infidelity, it is both cruel and unjust to
demand welfare he given by the ex-spouse and.to use the overwhelming police power of
the state to confiscate the ex-husband's income and distribute it in opposition to his own
best interest.
 Page 217

- .

.
"

Hard~'Time ....":::~··-;"'!n~ .

Men go to jail when they remain adamant about refusing orders of prejudiced
judges such as for exorbitant support payments. No defense, no attention and no
public support is the usual result of such imprisonment. And worse can happen.

Can a father be jailed for refusing to pay child support? Yes. Even though
debtor's prisons were outlawed over a century ago in every civilized country in the world,
and never existed in the United States, judges here can put you in jail. It may be
unconstitutional, but that is little solace when you are sitting in the pen, surrounded by
robbers, murderers and rapists.
How can such a travesty of law occur in California or any other state? First of all,
you must realize that there is virtually no check on the behavior of an aberrant judge. He
can commit all sorts of idiocy from the bench, but barring a mass movement against him,
he can keep on doing the same routine for years. Judges were given such isolation from
reality to prevent those who might object to their verdicts from attacking the competence
and character of the judge in order to win their cases. Cynically speaking, it could be said
that the judges built themselves a wall so that they could act irresponsibly with no fear of
retribution within the judicial system.
In California, there is a branch of state government that you can complain about
the behavior of a judge. It is called the Judicial Council, and there is an office where
letters go which complain about judges. There does not seem to be any record in the
recent history of California of a judge being removed by the Judicial Council or otherwise
except if he or she becomes mentally ill. Perhaps they are given admonishments in private,
in a manner similar to the way in which corrupt lawyers are reminded of their duty to the
public in secret meetings. Judges who fall asleep during hearings, who insult those who
come before them, who make irrational and inconsistent decisions, or who regard the state
or federal constitutions as no impediment to their decisions can just keep on doing it year
after year. A judge might eventually find himself assigned to the dungeon, i.e.,· the least
desirable courts such as involuntary incarceration hearings for the mentally impaired, but
removal just doesn't happen. The judiciary's professional excuse for this laxity is that if
you don't like a judge's decision, you can spend ten thousand dollars on some of their co-
members of the bar and appeal the decision. They ask, "What's the problem with that? It's
the way that the law is supposed to work."
If you don't have ten thousand, or if you had planned to spend it on something
other than a millionaire lawyer's Mercedes, like orthodontics for your kid's teeth, you don't
have many options. The judges know this. So they can treat you as a punching bag if
they want to. And you can go to prison.
How do you get there? One way we have observed is to defy a judge's orders so
that he can order you in contempt of court and jail you until you comply. For example,
you are a normal father, busily engaged in becoming a victim of some judge's financial
guillotine. You get smart, and quit your job and become a consultant, working for
contracts, which mean no wages, only a fixed payment for your product. The judge
cannot order your salary garnished, which is the standard means for beating a principled
Page 218 Version Date: May 29, 1994
~ . - . '< .•• ~ ., .",.':;

father into submission. With salaried employees, they just take your money from your
employer before you get it. But if you goon contract.with no employer but yourself and
you, as employer, refuse to garnish your ownsalary, you appear to have escaped the
power of the court. The judge decides to teach you a lesson, as he doesn't want a
precedent to be set for men to stand up to the immorality of court-ordered financial
operations. He simply "finds you in contempt" for not paying the amount he orders and
puts you in jail.
This means real jail, not some little holding cell where you can spend your time
writing a book or reading your mail. This means crowded into one of America's joints,
where you might learn the fine art of forgery from your cellmate if you are lucky and 25
ways to hurt someone without leaving marks if you aren't. Is this punishment
commensurate with the pseudo-crime you have committed? .Yes, but the action isn't not
paying the money the judge tells you to, the action that got you in there was standing up
for your rights. The judge has to save face by inflicting an unjust punishment on you.
Beingjailed for contempt turns out to be just like the Spanish Inquisition, where
punishment was given without any possibility of defense, and it continued until the victim .
surrendered and did whatever the court ordered.
This type of behavior by an accredited judge does more than just indicates the lack
of justice and fairness that can occur in our nation's courts, it also is a clear and
unmistakable display of the antagonism that some judges have against fathers. If you ever
doubted that prejudice and bigotry existed, this should be enough to convince you. If you
ever thought that exploring which judge might get your case was unimportant, you can
drop that idea now. If you get a black-robed bigot to hear your case, you might as well
give up all hope of your children or even your finances being allowed to remain with you.
If you get one of the real gentlemen that the courts have, you can expect to be treated
with honor and respect, as well as given a chance to present your case and be listened to.
These two extremes coexist in the same institution. One you don't dare defy any more
than you would the Grand Inquisitor; the other one you likely won't have to.
You might ask, why hasn't the ACLU or any other human rights organizations
protested against this type of indefensible incarceration? Divorced fathers are simply not
as respected as, say, neo-Nazis who want marching permits. They are at the bottom of the
heap of human victims and any organization trying to bust out a divorced father from a
contempt charge relating to his refusal to be coerced into paying for the results of a
bigoted divorce decision would soon find out that their core of support would evaporate.
So fathers caught in this situation can stay in prison for years, depending on their personal
strength and willingness to stand up for what they believe in. Unfortunately, they suffer
there alone and unnoticed.
If a mother is particularly unconcerned about her child and particularly full of
hatred for her ex-husband, and her lawyer is clever enough to schedule the case into a
particularly anti-male judge's courtroom, a spectacularly interesting surprise may await the
father. Ifhe returns the child after visitation, and then the mother hides the child away,
she can claim that he, not the mother, has hidden the child. The response of such a judge,
already preconditioned to disbelieve fathers in his or her court, may be to jail the father
until he returns the child. Since the poor father may not have the foggiest idea about
 Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 219

where the child is, he has little choice other than to rot in jail unless he can afford some
expensive legal talent. American justice? You bet it is.
Page 220 VersionDate:May 29, 1994· KiDDSNotes
 : ,,; .),/r":{-: .: .;').r;: •...•t i" .t-. I' . '.' :-'- • _ ••• _'

KiDDSNoteS Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 221

YourPrlvateScholarship Fund ,",

Would you like to be a donor to a private scholarship fund where you can provide
someone with a free college education? You can do this in some divorce courtrooms if
a judge decides that you need to be taught a little about charity and humility.

Wouldn't it be nice for you to have been able to go to college on a scholarship

without paying for it at all? This means all expenses paid, tuition, books, living expenses.r
transportation plus any extras that you need. Are such bonuses reserved for star athletes
and Rhodes scholars? No, your ex-wife can get one. From you. Your friendly divorce
court judge can enroll you in the scholarship donors association without your even having
to apply.
Real scholarships are given by colleges and universities or by foundations and
associations to students who meet their criteria. Some are full, meaning they pay for
everything with a large annual grant; some are partial and simply provide a fixed stipend to
help a student meet expenses. The academic ones have criteria that are often severe: top
grades, intention to specialize in a particular subject area like medicine, honors in science,
or something else to winnow out the top students from the masses of applicants. Athletic
scholarships do the same, by rewarding the best performers with support during their
playing years at college .
. The one you may be ordered to create would be a little different. There is only
one criteria: the recipient has to be your ex-wife. She gets it because she married you and
you are the male.
Do you think that this type of onerous judicial order simply happens to provide a
return of support to women who put their husbands through medical or law school? It has
nothing to do with that. Is it something designed to make these women self-supporting so
they can go off divorce welfare? Wrong again. There is no accounting given at the end of
the educational process. It's just something else that pro-women judges dreamed up to
take advantage of some loopholes in the legislation about divorce. You get ordered to
pay sufficient support to your ex-wife while she goes through school. Does it matter if
she lags a bit and only takes a halfload of courses for twice as long? No, and there is no
diminishment of support. The point is that here is a justification that can be used to take
money from a man who earns it and distribute it to a woman who hasn't and may never
earn it. It is simply one more creative way that judges and ex-wives' lawyers can work
together to pillory a father. It doesn't have to make sense. It only has to be somewhere
within the possible bounds of how the law can be interpreted or misinterpreted.
Judges have "discretion" in awards of support. They can order a college education
to be paid for by you. It doesn't matter if your ex is fully capable of supporting herself.
Nothing in the law prevents a judge from ordering you to replace that support in entirety.
Is this a student loan? Do you ever get something back? No. It is a scholarship in the
pure sense; a gift of money with no strings attached.
A simple request in the application for spousal support is enough to register your
ex-wife in this program. Does it matter that you, the suffering husband, worked your way
through college or vocational school? No. Does ·it matter that you have already
 Version Date; May 29, 1994 • KiDDSNotes
•..•• :. 1 .:. ": ;.;!~~,
;,,;:"
__, h~J;"':;J.,..··

supported part of your ex-wife's education whilemarried? yes ...•. Yo,"!have set a precedent
that can be followed by the court.j This; of Course; .is not completelynecessary.
What are the minimum requirements? On her. Nothing. On you: you must be
able to earn, withdraw. borrow or otherwise obtain enough money to pay for two. three.
four years of college for her. Just hope she doesn't want to go to law school as well. Is
your ex required to supplement such a scholarship with part time work? .No. Even if she
is taking a reduced load? No.
The picture is plain. You get to be saddled with providing for two people's
education. Your own. that you obtained by sweating and straining. and your ex's. that you
again get to sweat and strain for .. This is what is known as "equity" in courtroom lingo.
Equity used to mean that both parties to a lawsuit got a fair division of the results. if one
side got one part of what they wanted. the other side would get a part of what they
wanted. In difficult decisions. equity was a principle that allowed the judge to fashion a
compromise in which no one wins but no one loses everything. In divorce court. equity is
a club used to take as much as possible away from the party who earned it in order to
appease the party who didn't.
There is no out in divorce court for any father or husband who has assets that are
locatable and attachable. There is no regard for his ability to continue to keep up with the
burdens piled upon him. There is only the quick decision by a busy judge. usually agreeing
with his own private conception of "equity. "
To be fair. few husbands find themselves in a position to be victimized like this.
Many, if not most, women would not stoop to asking for such a handout. But given the
opportunity, a private scholarship, couched in the language of a spousal support order, can
be awarded.
To avoid it, never initiate divorce yourself while your wife is in school. Never
encourage her to go to school if there is any remote possibility that youwiU be saddled
with paying for it on top of setting up and maintaining your own household, caring for
your own children during your custody time, and trying to reestablish your own life. If she
wants to go to school and have you support her, request a written agreement as to what
will happen if divorce occurs. It may not be worth anything to a judge bent on taking care
of women like they were his own daughters (except with other people's money) but then
again your wife may have the character to stick to it. And cooperate with others to get
these absurd discretion laws changed. In this area of discretion, as in every other area
where men are treated like medieval slaves, only by banding together and protesting will
men be able to have these monstrous decisions eliminated.
 ~~.. "." .. ;;r:- ..r- ;:.;-.....,~.! ,", .
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 223

The Pension Hatchet

Your pension does not belong to you unless you protected it before marriage. You
need to underst:md how sn expert calculates its value and how to arglJe over its value.
Lastly, you need to decide on a buyout.

Nothing is sacred in a divorce .. You may have thought you could preserve
something, but the purpose of divorce court is to find everything you worked for and trash
it. No matter how lazy or unambitious your wife was, no matter how much you sacrificed
already for the marriage, no matter how hard you tried to make the marriage work, no
matter how much of your premarital savings you poured into the marriage, you are not
going to be treated any differently than the greedy scroog~ the opposite side will paint you
as.
"Fairness", "Equity", "Justice" are words you may hear bandied about in court and
in the various papers that get filed, but they are simply slogans to ease the conscience of
people whose main purpose is to take money that one person earned or is about to earn
and give it to someone who didn't or to themselves. You can't hide and you can't run, not
without losing everything you leave behind. If you have worked for many years at a
company or agency, and have built up pension rights, plan on having your expected
pension axed by the courts=. There are only two choices to think about: how to
minimize the amount ripped off: and how to pay it -- now in a lump-sum buyout, or later;
after you retire.
Pensions are complicated arrangements. If you are like most people, you never
bothered to figure out how they work, other than to look at some tables that estimate how
much you'd get back after a certain number of years. In community property states,
pensions are owned by both parties of a state marriage and must be divided; in non-
community property states, the same type of division usually happens, with the same or a
different proportion ..
An expert is usually hired, at the expense of the parties involved, to figure out how
much your pension is worth. If you were lucky enoughl~o marry someone with equal
earning power, you might just make an arrangement that you each keep your own pension.
If you were wise enough to use alternative marriage, y06r pension is probably all yours, as
it will be if you wrote a clause about pensions into your pre-nuptial agreement. Ifnone of
these are true, then you have to go through the division process.
The expert tries to figure out how much your pension is worth, and what fraction
of it is your wife's property. The second part of this is Jften easier. One method is for the
expert to assume a date on which you will retire, and di~ide the months of marriage (from
date of marriage to date of separation or divorce) by t~e total months that you paid into
the pension. In community property, half of this fractioh of the total value ofthe pension
or the total payoff may be awarded to your wife. The e~lier the date of retirement that
the expert assumes, the larger the fraction. He might use 65 ifthere is no reason to do

25 There are some special cases where Federal law takes precedence and should be consulted.
 Version Date: May 29, 1994 lGDDSNotes
y. , ~: _ .;....,.; _ .;. ;. _i ·ll,.t.it'~·!

otherwise. Alternately, he could use some average figure;.7: the national average age to
retire, the average age in your company, your profession-or otherwise.
The value of the pension is computed according to a set of formulas that the
pension agency devises to compute their payoff You are entitled to these formulas
yourself: and if you have some mathematical ability, you can write up a spreadsheet
program or some other program to figure it out. Part of the data that you use is historical,
typically the cost of living in the past (often measured by the Consumer Price Index), that
you can get from the agency or from any public library, and your salary history or
contribution history. The rest are assumptions, relating to guesses for the future cost of
living, your future salary and contributions and perhaps some other numbers. You can
plug in what you think will happen to you, salary-wise, and see what your future payoff
will be. The total value of the pension involves figuring out how long you might live and
collect the pension, and how much that money is worth now.
This involves something called a discount factor, which says that a dollar in your
hand now is worth more than a dollar to be paid to you later, because you could put it in
the bank or elsewhere and earn interest on it. The discount factor should be related to the
interest rate.
Guess what. If you get your own expert or compute it yourself or with the help of
a friend or a representative from the pension agency, you might find that your wife's
expert's opinion is a lot higher than yours. In other words, he figured out your wife's
share is worth a lot more than you did. That happens because he can make optimistic
assumptions. For example, he can assume you get raises equal to the average of the ones
you made in the past, even though you started out at a low salary and rose to a plateau.
He'll have you earning much more than you can reasonably expect. He also makes
assumptions about the rate of inflation, i.e., the change in the cost of living. With a low
assumption, he'll find the value of your pension to be more than you do with a larger
value. In order to contestthe high value that your wife's lawyer will submit to the court,
you need to understand the assumptions and what differences they make. Do not assume
the expert is impartial, and just go with his numbers. Assume nothing you have not
computed on your own.
The second choice you must make is whether or not you will buyout your wife's
share in the pension or pay her a fraction of it all while you are retired and collecting it.
You need to figure out what is best for yourself You might be laid off: and need the
money you bought her out with. You might need it anyway, just to survive after the court
finishes raping you. You might need it to feed, house and clothe your children, as the
court might not particularly care about this. You might be planning to retire earlier than
you can get the court to agree on. This is a bargaining chip for you. So far, it is not
possible for women to get the courts to order their victims to buyout their pension rights,
so you can explain your plans for early retirement, which might reduce her take
considerably, and see if you can get a better deal on the buyout.
The main point is not to be taken advantage of any more than absolutely necessary.
This means you need to understand your pension, which will probably be one of the most
boring subjects you ever needed to learn. Do a pile of calculations to see what effect
assuming different inflation rates, discount rates, salary increase rates, retirement dates,
and so on has on your pension's value. With a spreadsheet program this should be simple
KiDDSNotes V~ionDate: May 29, 1994 Page 225

to do, and you, your friend, expert accountant, or pension agency representative should be
able to do this for you. Go into the bargaining fully armed with data; otherwise it will be
just one more massacre. Because you are a father, there are enough of them in wait for
you already.
Page 226 -, Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
 t- ,
-'. \".';>1,,/1 :~JJf{~:~)i:;.J!!~/
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 227

TheArto! /Giving·'
Support awards to women sometimes leave men in desperate financial condition.
Even in situations where a woman is capable of living without it. support continues.
We have an entire culture to change in order to put an end to these practices.

A gift card company slogan was once "It's the feeling that matters." Their point
was that it wasn't how much a gift cost, it was the feeling behind it. You may have feeling
behind your court-ordered gifts to your ex-wife, probably an inferno of anger, but your
feelings don't matter at all. What matters is the court's feelings; It feels you should pay.
It feels you should pay a lot and for a long time.
One factor that is taken into account in figuring out the award to your ex is her
needs. Your needs are irrelevant, as men haven't bothered to form politically active
groups that would influence the political process of deciding how to divide property after
divorce. Women have. Furthermore, women have captured the media with what might be
called "Extreme cases", stories of women who have some merit to receiving money from
their ex-spouses and aren't. Men haven't, except in a negative way. Let your divorce be a
lesson to you about how America works. Public relations and political action decide what
justice is.
There are extreme cases that men have endured as well, but media spotlights rarely
ever shine on them. Some of men's extreme cases relate to situations where the ex-wife is
being paid a: bundle of money even though she has moved in with a well-paid lover. She
was smart enough not to get legally married by the state again, as that would cut off her
spousal support income from her ex. Her husband may be reduced to living in his car, but,
that's just too bad. He should get a second or third job.
In America, the name of the game is money. There is no stigma attached to living
together now. An ex-wife who moves in with someone, and who lives like a queen with
all her needs met, can expect to hear nothing but praise from most of her friends and
acquaintances for being smart enough to keep her hands on her ex-husband's income. In
some situations, she will have a common telephone number, common address, and be
known as half of a couple by everyone, with one exception: the court. Other states force
her to maintain some sort of independent address. Either way, the court regards her as
living alone and still "in need", which means she didn't bother to have a career as
successful as her ex-husband's. As long as she doesn't make the very foolish step of going
through a marriage ceremony with her lover, she stays single and alone in the eyes of the
court.
The reason for this is simple. The court is not in the business of working on needs
or anything else. They are in the business of satisfying political objectives that have been
coded into law by the State legislature. Ex-husbands lose Ex-wives win
If you had expected logic to enter this situation, you would be sadly disappointed.
True, the court can utter some rationales to a husband who complains, such as "We
understand your situation but the law does not recognize cohabitation as permanent ...",
or some other excuse. Who wrote that law? Space aliens? The real reason for it is the
Page 228 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDS Notes
": ..:. ~):1;;-("{ - 'r.: - ::..\:C~ '
. '.or. Itf ::,,~

same as for the laws awarding divorce welfare: political action has arranged for women to
be taken care of, just as it has arranged for-them to receive custody. Behind the law
stands a basic and thoroughgoing prejudice that has been exploited by two decades of
feminist writing and agitation. It is almost impossible to get a hearing on the opposite
point, that it is men who have been exploited and misused, both by society and. by the
courts. There are some books written, clearly and repeatedly giving a man's side of the
story, for example, "The Way Men Really Are" by Warren Francis. Yet there seems to be
little impact on public consciousness, on the media or on the courts. And it will probably
stay that way for the foreseeable future. It's a mark of our culture.
Men are trained to endure hardship. "It's the mark ofa man." Men are
conditioned by their fathers and by their peers to put up with difficulties, to persevere in
the face of obstacles, to continue to perform when faced with adversity. This is what
helps them achieve career goals and make something of their lives. In general, women do
not have as much of this training; many have just the opposite. Many were reared by stay-
at...home mothers who lived for shopping and did no more than make-work tasks around
the house. As a consequence, many women expect to have a steady source of money,
rather than going out to-get it themselves.
The conditioning of men to endure hardships and make sacrifices makes them
perfect victims for the state's exactions of welfare money and the other charges made.
When it comes to facing down other men, they can compete in business and sports. When
it comes to getting an honest deal from a woman, they turn around and see it as a
necessary sacrifice. Something a man has to endure. The socialization of men as victims
of women's financial extortion is so thorough-going that many have a hard time conceiving
of life in any other way. And that is one of the principal reasons that the disaster we see in
divorce courts continues.
KIDDSNotes Page 229

House,,; HousevHouse! ",',

In many marriages, a house is the major asset that a couple entering divorce has.
Figuring out how to keep this from being a major liability to a father is very important
in his financial future. It may depend on custody and, surprisingly, legal fees.

Most middle-class couples in America have only one large asset, their house.
Many divorce actions are designed to take the asset away from the man, or use it to
extract more money from him. Often the lawyers of both sides desire to sell the house and
convert it to cash, as it is the only source offunds large enough to pay off their monstrous
bills.
In order to know what options you have with respect to your house, you need to
have some basic information' and then do some calculations. Whose house is it?'
Determining this is not usually difficult, but it does require some specific information.
Each state has its own rules. Some 'states go by title: did you put your wife's name on the
title, was it hers to begin with, did you own it first? Other states, e.g., California, have
had recent changes of rules, so the ownership of the house depends on the year in which it
was purchased and the source of the money used for it. In community property states,
tracing is used to determine who owned the money used to buy the house. With tracing,
the money that went into the house is followed back, step by step, until it arrives in either
a separate property account such as a bank account with one person's name on it, or is
seen to be commingled, i.e., arrives in a bank account with both parties' names on it.
Tracing rules depend on the state involved, just as separate property rules do. In common
law states, title is often determinative, but agreements, oral or written or implied, can
affect ownership.
To figure out the state law, a trip to a law library or a lawyers office is probably
necessary. The law library will have books on property law in the state the library is
located in, and some reading will tell you what the relevant law is. Short-circuiting this is
a visit to a lawyer's office, where a brief visit can bring you up to speed on the law. It is
certainly not necessary to retain a lawyer for your divorce if you simply need some
questions answered. If you have one, call him after you have prepared your questions and
data.
Once you know who is likely to be found to own the house, you need to figure out
what to do. There are several distinct situations; you own the house yourself, it is injoint
ownership or your ex's, you have full custody, substantially equal custody or only
visitation. By far the most common situation is when you have joint ownership and no
prospects for more than minimal custody.
If you have joint ownership with your spouse, you may be hit badly in four ways.
First, you can be ordered to forego use of the house and denied the right to sell it for a
number of years while your ex-wife, if she has custody, gets to use it, almost assuredly
without paying you anything to compensate you for the non-use of your asset. This is
simply a way that legislators, judges and the whole legal phalanx lined up against you have,
figured out to make your financial situation worse and that of your poor, little ex-wife's
Page 230 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes
. I! ~ . ~:~ ~.; '.~:.. , " n <;;~ . '.

better. Naive fathers often feel that they can argue that this violates basic property rights.
Of course it does, but that doesn't mean anything in courtr.; ~' ; ,< t} ~~' "f
The second way you lose out is that you may be required to pay part of the
mortgage while your ex uses the property. Various excuses are used for this, such as the
use of the property by her is rated at some equivalent value of rental, and if the mortgage,
taxes, and insurance are greater than this, you should pay for it because it's your property.
This is sort of a rental agreement that the court shoves down your throat. Another ruse
for this one is that equity is being built up (typically for non-recent purchases), so the
husband should contribute. This is legal, even though absurd,
Third, if she doesn't maintain the house, count on being allowed to make further
repair or maintenance payments, but not on her being ordered to take care of it herself.
Everybody knows women don't do houses! The wife does not have to maintain the house,
but instead can let it run down. Then the husband has the choice of paying the repairs
himself: or losing more of his equity. We have never seen an ex-wife penalized for causing
this loss, as long as she can find some excuse to recite.
Fourth, if your ex sublets part of the house, don't count on getting any reduction in
payments on it.
If the house is yours alone, it may still be vulnerable to these assaults. Courts have
ruled, albeit rarely, that a custodial mother could still be awarded full use ofthe family
home.
None of these rip-offs will work unless your ex gets custody. If you get custody,
expect nothing financial in addition, although it never hurts to push the system and watch
it discriminate. In America, it's motherhood, apple pie and the flag that command people's
allegiance. Fatherhood is not included. A divorced father is a guy who messed up the
motherhood part of the trio. He can expect the worst, even though it will make the
children he has in custody suffer.
Even if you never spend a cent on yourself beyond the most minimal necessities,
devoting everything to your children, expect the courts to still slam dunk you. You
probably won't get use of the family home if you get custody, and you can still be forced
to sell it off to make money for lawyer's fees. But at least you don't get the double
whammy that not having custody can lead to.
If the house is all yours to begin with, and you get custody, then you are relatively
invulnerable to the tricks the legal eagles are used to pulling on men. You can raise your
children in the family home for the rest of their childhood, assuming that you can afford
the payments on your own. What an incentive for keeping it in your own name!
The loss of your house is something to think of while you are figuring out your
plans for the post-decision period. This is one of the hardest lessons to learn about
divorce, where you find out that all the money you earned by hard labor, overtime, second
jobs, scrimping and saving, will be swallowed up in the court just as if it were something
you found in the street. The courts show absolutely zero, totally, absolutely zero respect
for the hard work you have gone through, and it is inconsequential if you earned much or
all of the money used to buy the house before you married. It is as if you didn't exist as a
person and were just a number on a computer screen. You may find this is enough to
make you decide that something has to be done to rectify the injustice that masquerades as
divorce law in America,
 Version Date: May 29, 1994 .

If you are trapped in the multiple burden situation oflosing use of your house and
its equity, paying part of the mortgage and repairs to it, on top of other demands, you
need to find a way out of the financial black hole. Perhaps the only way is to approach
bankruptcy. Instead of living in your car, or the city's cheapest slum, you can simply
maintain a minimally decent existence and allow your finances to go so bad that you
approach bankruptcy. This is not regarded as tolerable by judges, as it exposes their
financial assaults to another audience, and also because it denies creditors their money,
something courts are not supposed to do. As you approach or file for bankruptcy, expect
the court to find a way to reduce the financial exactions on you, most likely by selling the
house. Stability is important for your children in the eyes of the court, but not if the
lawyers involved lose their awarded fees because you file for bankruptcy.
Another stratagem is to see if your state limits the total amount of garnishment,
and if it prioritizes garnishment claims. If it does, for example at 50%, you simply make
no voluntary payments in addition to this to forced mortgage payments, lawyers' fees, etc.,
'.
assuming you have already used up your liquid assets. Typically child support will be paid
first from your garnishment, then spousal support. If this leaves nothing for her lawyer,
well, you now have an ally in getting your house sold. No lawyer wants to wait for an end
to child support to collect his blood money.
If the payments you fail to make force the house into or near to foreclosure, fine.
You lose money in the short run and damage your credit rating, but you put an end to one
of the classes of financial extortion going on and, incidentally, level one of the grounds for
maintaining custody solely with your wife. Now the children will have more experience in
your digs than in your wife's new ones. The stability argument is partially defused.
A self-employed man has similar options, although his business may suffer ifhe is
unable to maintain the same level of work as he did prior to the divorce and he can no
longer make payments as the court orders. The courts will not particularly care if your
business fails unless there are many third parties who will go down with you. Affecting
banks is even worse. Even then, it is payments to lawyers that get the court's undivided
attention. You are affecting the line of sustenance that the judge himself or herself may
have depended on for years prior to becoming a judge.
Page 23.2·· V~ionDate;May2?'J1994 . KiDDS Notes.,
i:..:' ..it>'f.. L"l',. .,

:,>
 Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 233

Howto Lower Your Legal Costs

There are many ways to cut legal costs. Since they often interfere with a father
being able to support himself and his children adequately, all possibilities should be
looked at. Some require the cooperation of a father-oriented lawyer. Others don't.

If it is something you can live with, and your spouse agrees, the best way to cut
your legal costs down to nothing is to make up and live happily ever after. A couple who
can figure out how to be happy together usually provides a much better home environment
for their children, saves money in more ways than just legal costs, and reduces the stresses
that shorten lives and sap energy. But if you can't do that, you can simply give everything
to your ex-wife: the kids, the house, your income, the car, and anything else you can think
of. Then she has nothing to fight about and you won't need any lawyering to defend your
interests: you have none left. Many men take this approach, especially the ones who are
basically nice guys, generous and self-sacrificing, and perhaps still in love with the woman
they lost. Perhaps they are trying to win her back by pretending to be a doormat with
"STEP ON ME" written on it. It usually doesn't work, but they do manage to keep their
legal costs way down. They often get the unpleasant parts of divorce over with quickly,
and if they foresee that they will be able to do fine by starting over, it might seem an
attractive way to go. Less hostility may mean that more contact with the children is
permitted by the ex, and that is an important achievement.
The downside of this is that support costs are no longer fixed. They go up
whenever the non-custodial parent gets a raise or bonus or anything else. There is no
upper limit, and if a man, just starting out in business, is figuring on getting a low child
support amount and then increasing his income substantially to compensate for it, he
should think again. His support payments will go up as well. However, if the father has
very little interest in his own material prosperity, doesn't plan on having a second family,
or is willing to make do on what he can hang on to, this may work. The unpleasantness is
over quickly.
For the father for whom neither reconciliation or absolute surrender is acceptable,
there is the possibility of mediation. Mediation is for a husband and wife who are both
reasonable and not greedy. It works and it works cheaply. Whether it is a lawyer or a
counselor who does the mediation, or even a family friend, there are few costs involved in
the divorce itself. It fails when neither party is willing to make the majority of the
sacrifices, when one of them enjoys battling and the other won't give up, when one side
literally cannot understand the concept of fairness, or when one side trusts no one, not
even a mediator, not to double-cross her.
The next most legally inexpensive option is for the father to go pro per. This
requires a lot of work and time, and also demands a certain frame of mind and some talent
for legal thinking. If a father has these personal attributes, then his side's legal costs may
be about zero.
Other than these options, a lawyer must be involved. The most expensive way to
involve one is to have him or her do everything. But that is not the only way, just the
Page 234" -
, ' Version Date: May 29. 1994
~",',~~,_ t .•. ~~.: '",_,.,;". r
KiDDS Notes '
, i

most common one:" Some lawyers will cooperate with clients who want to do some of
their own work; and whocando itcompetently.,"
For example, a father who has his own computer and wants to prepare his own
legal forms may come to an understanding with his lawyer that the lawyer will simply
review the work and then submit it. If the client has enough knowledge of what to do,
and does not make many mistakes, the reviewing process is considerably less expensive
than having the lawyer do all the interviewing necessary to get the data, transmit it to his
staff, review their work and then submit it. If the client doesn't have much concept of the
law, however, he will have a hard time doing anything more than the simplest forms. One
way to get ahead is to find someone who has gone through it, to borrow their legal file,
and to simply copy what is appropriate. For example, working out a proposed custody
order is something that a client might do, and if he has one that a friend has done, he can
simply modify it as necessary. It would be even more simple if the friend was a pro per
and had his legal forms on computer disk. Even if they have to be recopied, however, the
work load is not Vf;;rysevere. Documents that are' submitted to court have to be either on
legal paper or forms prepared for the court, but legal paper is easy to obtain or make on a
computer and the forms are usually available for the asking or for copying in a legal
library. If no friends have files to use, the clerk at the local courthouse has the records of
all the divorce cases for the last many, many years. A sample of them should be sufficient
to provide some good examples.
It is important that a father not be in awe of lawyers, or he might be too worried
about his own abilities to ask about ways to reduce his legal costs. This simply means that
he has not had enough experience to realize how easy most aspects of divorce law are.
Contact with a few successful pro pers would probably help. The father might be too
fearful that the lawyer would turn on him if he did this, or would no longer give his full
concentration to the case or even would mislead him in order to get him back to a full
service arrangement; This is possible, .andafather should be prepared for-this possibility.
However, there are usually lots oflawyers around, and if one bugs out, another can be
found. Having to use the second choice oflawyer is something to be weighed against the
possibility of running out of money to pay for the first choice before everything is done. It
is something that can only be decided by the father himself
Using this cooperative scheme, the judge on the case can be as biased against pro
pers as humanly possible, and he or she will never know that there is any pro per-like
activity occurring. The lawyer serves as front man in the court room, and advisor and
reviewer. This works especially well for a father who finds he enjoys the law, is familiar
with law libraries or is willing to become familiar, and does not mind tedious hours
occasionally.
The other side of this is to register with the court as a pro per, yet use one or more
lawyers as reviewers and advisors. This may provide some short cuts in learning about the
law, and may make it easier for the father to represent himself if he is short of time. A
large amount of legal costs comes from time that the lawyer spends sitting in court,
waiting for his or her turn to come up. A father can sit in court and simply read something
interesting while waiting, and he will not be five hundred or a thousand dollars poorer.
However, the father in this case has to have spent enough time getting familiar with what
goes on. In either of these cases, the father who studies some divorce law will probably
 ~ ;'~r: 'w" ,: ~ .s:«: . .- ~,
,:
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29. 1994 Page 235

come out ahead,' even if he decides later to ab~d~ri 'the co~p~~atlY~~arigement3.nd go.;(':;
to using a full-service lawyer. Any person who understands moreof the law has a much,' .
better chance of knowing what his rights really are, what his lawyer is supposed to.be ,,,, '
doing and if his or her excuses are valid, and may pick up on the ,tncks his ex or her lawyer
is playing before his own lawyer does. ' After 81~lawyers are often busy people and have
many cases to keep track of A father just has one and it usually gets his full attention.
A third option, even more rarely used, is for the client to have the lawyer represent
him only on more difficult hearings. Most hearings are simple-minded recitals of each
side's contentions, and a pro per can do them well. However, an attorney for the mother
usually will not negotiate with a father who is represented by a lawyer, even if the lawyer
, approves of it. This is simply one of those rules that helps sometimes and hurts other
times, but always makes money for members of the bar. This option is therefore only
possible for non-negotiation situations. An ex parte motion, i.e., one that is filed by one
party only, is possible. A trial that is solely conducted for the purpose of changing the
status of the couple from married to divorced is another. One way around this, is to hire a
lawyer as an advisor, and appear as pro per during the easier stages of work. At the end,
for example, some weeks before the trial where property is divided, the lawyer can be ,
registered with the court and can do his work where it is most needed.
Any lawyer who agrees to this arrangement realizes that, unless he is.careful, he
can be attacked for not having done his job properly. He is supposed to represent his
client to the best of his ability and allowing the client to go to court by himselfis an
apparent violation of this. This means that any legal papers filed by the father related to a
hearing in which he himself will appear alone must say that this is by direction of the client,
after having been advised of the potential problems involved. ' .
Another way to keep down lawyer court time is for the lawyer to ask the court in
writing, for each hearing, that he be allowed to appear telephonically.' That means that if
there is any question that comes up, they call him. He has to remain in his office during
the time of the hearing, but he can be doing other useful work and not billing the client for
his full half or whole day's time. Only lawyers who have sufficient work to keep busy are
likely to be willing to agree with these sharing arrangements.
A lawyer used completely can ring up bills in the multiple thousands without hardly
trying. It might be possible to eliminate some fraction of that by using a lawyer whose
hourly billing rate is low compared to the average. Sometimes lawyers simply are not into
money, having maintained a counterculture attitude all through law school, and keep their
fees low so that poor clients can use their services without having to feel demeaned by
asking for a handout: of legal assistance. Finding such a person might be a challenge,
except by word of mouth. Another way to save legal costs is to find one who works
efficiently. The way to do this is to discuss how each particular lawyer being considered
mounts up time with a few of his or her former clients, Some lawyers spend a lot of time
in court, filing motions and getting continuances, never seeming to get motions or
hearings or trials done quickly. It is very hard to compare experiences of different fathers
with different lawyers, different desires, different backgrounds, but the effort is well worth
making, A lawyer who is a crass exploiter of the opportunities for stalling might be
detectable this way.
 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
I;.·~:" \ ,/ .': '¥~'h~~~ ;~J;'<] f1.\~t~::::~;\f

One way to save legal costs islawyer ~thd~a,:,:~ an option that is often forced on
fathers:" A man who' does'nodiave a'large amount of available assets often finds himself ,,'"
flat out of money to pay for more legal actions, even though there are' many parts of the .
divorce that he wants to' continue struggling With. The lawyer may allow him to run up a
certain level of debt before he or she starts demandingsome payments, and if not enough '
is available, the lawyer may withdraw at the first available opportunity. This means that
the father has to either surrender to his ex-wife, or to become a pro per. Since this
happens frequently, any father without deep pockets should learn as much as possible
about the law and about what goes on in court so that he will be able to take over his own
case when he runs out of money. That means using the time that the lawyer is
representing him to figure out how to use a law library, how to file forms, how to do
service, how to deal with custody evaluators, and the other various aspects of being a pro
per. It should be considerably easier to learn while watching what goes on instead of
having to learn it all from textbooks or from a friend or acquaintance who has gone
through it. This preparation period is costly, but it provides a running start for the father.
The same phenomenon occurs when the father fires his lawyer forbeing
incompetent or for refusing to provide him what he wants, or for any other reason like
being unavailable for extended periods or for ballooning his charges. The father may have
gone through two or three lawyers before realizing that he is capable of doing it himself or
that he is unlikely to find someone with his level of enthusiasm and motivation to defend
his interests vigorously enough or to rescuehis children from a wretched or even
dangerous situation. Again, he has had at least a bad example of how to be a divorce
lawyer, and probably has found out what was wrong with his lawyers' work by studying
his rights or comparing what a friend's lawyer got or the friend got for himself as pro per.
He has also had some time in court to get over the nervousness and apprehension that
often occur.
Another option is using a family friend who is a lawyer. If there is nothing
particularly unusual about your divorce, a lawyer who is not expert in family law but is a
member of the state bar could probably do it nicely. He would have to review the
procedures involved ifhe has been out oflaw school for very long, but this is not a major
undertaking. And he or she may not charge anything, depending on the difficulty ofthe
case. Some women look for and find a boyfriend who is a lawyer to do their divorce, and
if a father was not above this sort of subterfuge, he might do the same and look for an
unattached woman lawyer. However, it would seem like a last resort for someone with
much morality or decency, i.e., a typical pro-child father.
The other side of the legal cost problem is the legal costs of the other side, i.e., the
ex-spouse. If an ex-spouse has no or little income and no or little personal savings and
credit, the father may be assigned to pay her legal costs as well, or a part of them. This
means that each time he is forced to file a motion by his ex-spouse's behavior or refusal to
compromise, he is hit with legal costs of both sides. There is very little in law so
manifestly ridiculous and unfair as giving one party a blank check like this. There are
judges who refuse to do this except under very unusual circumstances, such as if the
woman is handicapped or unable to find work. Other judges are more than happy to
assign all legal costs to anyone who can find enough money to pay them. They don't seem,
to realize that such an arrangement completely eliminates any incentive for the party who
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994

doesn't have to pay to be reasonable about anything. This means that an ex-wife can;. ,/ /:
decide to fight on every issue, knowing full well that the cost of fighting may bankrupt her
ex-husband and cause him to have to give up. Yet judge after judge after judge keeps .'
doing this.
What the judges who do this think about is never revealed, but it is hard to imagine
that they have any rational explanation for increasing the level of combat of a' divorcing
couple by giving one all the free ammunition she wants.
To minimize exposure to this potentially large and expensive problem, a father may
want to do several things. One is to make sure that he attempts to solve all problems out
of court in a documented way. He should propose settlement offers that are reasonable;
he should offer to meet to negotiate; he should make himself available to respond to offers
from the other side; and so on. He should do this all in a documentable and demonstrable
way. Ifhe can show that the other side is being unreasonable and intransigent on a wide
variety of issues.the judge may get fed up withthe ex-wife and cut offher source oflegal
funding. After all, the judge has a courtroom to run, and if the ex-wife is coming in over
and over again on small points, it gets to be a burden on the schedule. To push this
further, a father can search the legal arguments made by his ex's lawyer to see ifthere is
any substantial justification for what they claim. If there is not, then he can make the
argument that their claims are frivolous. This word, frivolous, is a legal word meaning
that they don't have any grounds to base their demands on, no facts or data to use,and
they are simply in court to be in court. A lawyer who has to defend him or herself against
a charge of frivolous legal process has to actually do some serious defensive work. Ifhe
or she does not, the judge can award the father sanctions, i.e., a fine to be paid by the
other side's lawyer to him to compensate him for the waste of his time and effort.' Usually
this will just about cover his legal fees of bringing the charge, unless he is in pro per. Then
anything he wins is pure profit.
The other way to reduce the possibility of the legal costs of the other side dropping
on him like a ton oflead is to be poor. Ifhe has no more income than his ex-wife, and his
expenses are about equal, a judge would have a hard time defending a decision to dump
her costs on him. The reason is that this additional legal cost burden is not imposed as
punishment for your fighting and perhaps losing some contested actions; at least it is not
supposed to be. The law that allows judges to shift legal costs in a divorce is based on
equity, i.e., the leveling of the playing field between one party who can afford a lawyer and
one who can not. If they are both in about the same situation, no leveling can be done.
Ifa father starts off in the same economic situation as his ex-wife, he simply needs
to not to make any more efforts than she does to change the economic situation until after
the divorce fireworks are over. Once the trial is over and the question of assignment of
legal costs is over, it's over for good. If he gets ajob later and his ex does not, she will
have a hard time going back to court and getting legal costs that were assigned to her at
the conclusion of the final trial changed over to him.
If a father doesn't start off in the same economic situation, for example, if he had a
leisure wife and was the sole provider of income, he has a choice to make. Getting poor
for a while may be easy, unless his assets are substantial, but it may cause him serious
problems in the future. Furthermore, he may cause himself more problems than he solves. '
J~age238 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes
~'.,; '~_- J ••..•
': • ":'j; ,.

A loss of work that appears, or is provable, to be deliberate by a man is often treated very
harshly by judges. . ..... .' . ..., J. . •... ' .... ' .' " ,. "

Alternately, if done by a woman, quitting work is often completely ignored. .If a

woman quits work and tells the court that she had to leave, and therefore has to have her
ex-husband pay her legal costs, ex-in-question needs to subpoena her job records and then
hope that they show that she voluntarily left. If she was successful at her job, got good
evaluations or made her sales quota or didn't deliver the wrong goods or otherwise
performed well up to a date near the time she became unemployed, he can make the
argument that she is deliberately and fraudulently attempting to influence the court to
award her legal costs to him. If these are large, the loss of her income for some months
may be worth it for her as she would save more in legal costs than she would lose by
going on unemployment. The ex-husband would want to make that argument as well.
One other method of containing the legal costs of an ex-wife is to make sure that
her attorney knows the facts of the case. Even though attorneys are supposed to ferret.
out the truth, whether their clients tell them or not, a mother may have been successful at
concealing that she, for example, abused her children. Some attorneys are so repelled by
people who do that, that they do not wish to defend them, and certainly do not wish to
attempt to gain custody for them so that more abuse can go on. A father needs to provide
that information to his ex's attorney if it is factual; the worse that will happen is that it will
be ignored and the best is that his ex's attorney will withdraw at the first opportunity,
rather than continue to aid and abet a child abuser. A withdrawn attorney cannot be
awarded legal costs from the other side, .and that may be a desirable situation if the
attorney realizes that his or her efforts in court have led to your children being physically,
sexually or psychologically abused. Yes, underneath the hardened exteriors of some of the
orneriest attorneys is a heart that recognizes the pain of children. Even the meanest
attorney in the state might have a hard time sleeping at night if he or she realized that little
children were suffering severely because of his or her work. They might find it better to
leave the money with the father so that he can hire the necessary therapists to help the
children to recover.
A father who is in pro per has the opportunity to talk to his ex's attorney directly
and can make the case that his children are suffering because of the lawyer's work more
explicitly and perhaps more effectively. The emotion that arises within a father who
realizes that his children are being hurt makes a strong effect on normal people. Getting
the ex-wife's lawyer to question his or her client's falseness may be the key to having him
or her realize that it is not worthwhile to continue to represent her, especially if she insists
on maintaining or regaining custody. The lawyer needs to understand the devastation that
child abuse does to children, both in the short term and the long term; he may be as
ignorant of it as most non-legal people are. He or she needs to be asked how he or she
can justify taking money for children's pain. The father needs to demand that the lawyer
make his or her best efforts to find out the truth about the abuse before continuing with his
client. If he or she fails to do this, they may be legally liable for whatever happens to the
children, and the lawyer needs to be aware that the father is not going to permit it to be
forgotten. Few lawyers are vicarious sadists and few would want the notoriety of being
sued, even with little chance of losing, for knowingly working to continue child abuse.
 A • r .

KJI}DS Notes Version Date: May 29,1994 _ Page 239

Do You "Have-to Pav Your Lawyer's

Bills?
Legal bills take a huge bite out of many fathers' assets and incomes. even for years
after the divorce is finished. But it might not be necessary to be absolutely scrupulous
about paying every last cent a lawyer bills.

The answer to the question in the title is sometimes yes and sometimes no. -Often a
lawyer will not start working for you without a retainer, i.e., a payment in advance. After
that, he (or she) bills you monthly for the time spent on your case and the expenses that he
runs up on your behalf: including court costs, copying costs, service costs, expert witness
fees, and a host of other expenses he thinks are necessary for the successful prosecution of
your case. If you don't pay immediately, most lawyers will simply extend you credit,
_knowing that your finances may be shaky in the first few months of divorce. However,
each lawyer has a limit to his willingness to go without being paid. He may want you to
develop a plan to come up with the money, e.g., a monthly payment, or to agree to use
some of the proceeds of the sale of your personal or real property to pay his bills when the
court gets around to dividing up the property you and your spouse accumulated. Of
course, if there is a chance that your ex may be hit with paying for your legal costs, a rare
chance for a man, there is no need to pay anything beyond the retainer until the court
decides who will pay yourlegal fees. This would only happen if you do not have any
ability to pay and your ex does, for example, if she has a high-paying job and you are
unemployed. It is also usually necessary that the US President, the Governor of your
state, all nine of the Supreme Court justices arid the Secretary-General of the UN make
personal phone calls to the judge on your behalf.
Making periodic but irregular payments is also usually acceptable. As long as the
lawyer has money coming in, his own resources are invariably substantial enough to tide
him over from payment to payment. The only problem occurs when you don't make any
substantial payments, perhaps because oflack of income, and have no major assets to be
sold to make his fees. Often, he would not take the case if this were true, as any good
businessman looks first at the ability to pay before contracting to provide services.
Charity doesn't play very well in lawyer circles.
However, if you don't pay and it looks like you won't be able to pay by sale of
assets, which he can put a lien on in some states, your lawyer might start thinking about
greener pastures and move to withdraw from representing you. This can be done easily in
the initial stages of the divorce process, but a lawyer will not be permitted to withdraw by
many judges when preparations for the trial are underway. Otherwise the trial might have
to be delayed, and the court calendar juggled, which is not something they want to do.
This may mean that you have an unwilling lawyer representing you at a critical part of
your divorce case. While all lawyers are sworn to put out their best efforts for all their
clients, there is not a lot you can do about it if you are shortchanged in favor of paying
clients. If your lawyer makes some particular specific blunders, such as missing the
Page 240 Version Date: May 29•.19~4 KiDDSNotes
- ~>_ ..• '. .::. , •. :1

deadline for filing some important papers that hurts your case, you may have grounds for
suing him or for requesting that the court rehear whatever matters this dilatory behavior '.
affected. You would make this request after you have changed lawyers or had a good talk
with the one you have. However, specific blunders are unusual, and the more likely
recourse is for the unpaid lawyer simply to do a perfunctory job. This means that all steps
that are necessary to get done for a divorce are done, but they are done without any real
interest in doing them right. Witnesses who might be important are ignored, on the claim
that "In my experience, such investigations are a waste of time", a typical excuse you
might hear. Digging into financial matters is curtailed, and your ex may be able to get
away with murder by making false claims that are not checked. Your lawyer's talk with
your custody evaluator might last two minutes mid consist of "Hello" and "How's the
weather there?" instead of an hour of persistent arguing for your position. You are left
with a losing case and nothing to sue about.
The other situation that relates to lawyer fees concerns the wrap-up at the end.
There might be an unspoken agreement that you will pay after you get through the trial
portion of your case. Even if you do not have any assets to split up or turn over to your
lawyer, you can expect that your financial situation will improve once the trial is wrapped
up. Perhaps you were tagged with paying your ex-wife's legal expenses and the amount
you will have to pay will be finished off at some time after the trial. Perhaps you were hit
with some educational costs for your ex-wife, or your spousal support can be expected to
drop, or something else might happen that will put you in a position to pay your bills.
What if you don't? For example, suppose you have put in ten thousand toward
your lawyer's fees and costs, and still owe five more. Your lawyer can plead for payment,
cajole you, point out you need him for any recurrence, suggest payment plans, and set
deadlines. If you ignore the requests on the grounds you felt he was vastly overpaid
anyway considering the quality of results that came out, or for any other reason, he may
threaten you with being sued or losing your credit rating,if you have one left after the ..
divorce. Sometimes these threats are pure hot air. Your lawyer has to figure out if it
helps him or hurts him to do this. Many times, the nuisance of suing you is more trouble
than the benefit of winning is worth. The court where he would sue you would have to
listen to why you explain why you thought he overcharged you, had an excessive per hour
cost, didn't attempt to minimize your costs, was not very effective in what he did, and on
and on. Then the court might simply find that you have paid enough. Your lawyer would
find that he has wasted a lot of time and gained nothing. The burden of proof that all his
various charges were well founded might effectively be on his shoulders, and he also has
to defend his competency. This is not necessarily the most pleasant experience that he can
think of going through. For this reason, most lawyers forget trying to get the last bit of
money from a former client. Instead, they spend their time on new clients, who each have
a new set of assets to work on. Similarly, the lawyer is not likely to report your problems
to a credit agency, as you can protest in writing there as well, and any individual credit
grantor who has worked with a lawyer will read your explanation of your lawyer's
overcharges and probably not hold it against you for the purpose of granting you further
credit if the remainder of your credit record is clean.
Furthermore, if your lawyer makes you mad by suing you, you might get the nasty
idea in your head about countersuing him for malpractice. This carries a big burden of
 Page 241

time as weU. It also may mean that his .malpractice inSurance company gets involved and -
starts worrying about whether his premiums should go up. '.If the insurance company has
to spend a lot of their lawyers' time defending him, even if you lose, they are out time and
money unless they can collect from you. And their collecting from you may run into the
same problems as your own lawyer had collecting from you. All in all, it's usually a good
idea for a lawyer to leave you alone even if you don't pay all your bills.
The other objective that runs through a lawyer's mind is new business. A client
who walks away from a multithousand dollar debt that his lawyer is going to write off
feels a lot better about that lawyer than one who sues him. This means more chances for
personal referrals. Divorce law is a competitive and lucrative business, and a lawyer with
a reputation for suing his clients to get the last bit of his bill paid is not likely to get many
referrals. He would necessarily think that having a previous client send him a new client
or two over the next few years is much more profitable than fighting to get his bill paid. A
lawyer without clients earns nothing and has his overhead to nieet. This is not a pleasant
prospect. Some lawyers have estimated that three-quarters of their clients are from
personal recommendations from previous clients. That is a lot of clients to put in jeopardy
by developing the habit of suing your clients, especially ones who are financially suffering
already and would take it personally to have to go deeper in debt to pay the bills of a
supposedly rich lawyer. A knowledgeable client would therefore think twice about
worrying about paying his lawyer's final fees if he is not financially comfortable himself. If
the case is continuing, and the client is going to need more legal services, then there might
be a reason for keeping up a payment schedule. Trying to get another lawyer later on
when some more divorce problems come up might be a bit harder if there are legal bills
left unpaid from the previous lawyer. However, divorce law is a competitive and lucrative
business and a client is a client, especially when he comes in the door with a retainer.
There should be little problem in being represented in later matters if the pay is up front.
If the client has decided to go pro per, and represent himself after having seen how
to do it for a period of time, there is even less compunction to payoff the legal bills of a
lawyer. Going pro per often leaves a former client with a appreciation of how easy
divorce law is, and his anger at paying huge hourly rates may become so great that he is
just looking for a chance to get back at his lawyer. Some lawyers would consider it good
business to leave such people alone. Searching for new clients or figuring out how to
stretch out paying cases are much safer and usually more profitable ways for a lawyer to
spend his time.
This means that a client should take the Willingness of his lawyer to not press for
collection of his final bill not as a token of how much the lawyer's sensitive feeling go out
to him or of how generous and kind a person the lawyer is, but rather that it is good
business sense. These billing bargains should not be allowed to affect a father's opinion of
how well his lawyer represented him when someone else asks him for a recommendation
or when he is filling out a survey for a men's rights group. He should give his opinion
based on the results that the lawyer achieved. Did he get sole custody for his client if
asked to do so? Did he get joint custody if asked to do so? Did he get a large amount of
visitation if asked to do so? Did he get an order forcing the mother to comply with
visitation orders and then get it enforced? Did he get an order compelling the mother to
keep the children near their original home or at the absolute minimum for her to pay for all
Page 212"1 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes
. ...~->. ~ ; ..~. t •.••• :':'u< ''':'.~ ;tv!(;"}..5V· ':'\.11 ~Lh~.

transportation costs for a very frequent visitation schedule ifshe leaves with the children?
These are the"criti,c3Iq~estioIis related to 'a lawyer's oompetence-'io represent' other' fathers.
Questions of'billing are:
secondary related to the future of one's kids! .
KIDDSNotes Page 243

Doing Visita.tion
KiDDSNotes
, • : j .~:;t·~(\'}';'"
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994

Weekend Dad
A father who is restricted to weekend contact with his child needs to do a lot with
a little time. while fighting for more custody. What he should do depends on how
much recovery from divorce the child has done.

A father who is reduced to visiting his child one or more weekends a month is
faced with a difficult situation. He is very limited in how he can help his child. No father
should ever be content with such a restriction on his contact with his child, and should
work to change his situation so he can be the father that his child needs. But, given the
horrible prejudice that faces divorced fathers as well as the lack of assistance that society
gives to divorced fathers to make their fathering easier, it may be impossible to gainmore
contact time, at least temporarily. A father in such a situation needs to figure out how to
make the best out of the limited time with his child that he is allowed.
, There are so many things to be done with that little segment of time. A non-I
custodial father has to continually reestablish his relationship with his child. He has tr
assess how the child is doing and monitor him or her to make sure that nothing abusive is
occurring, either physically or psychologically. He has to help his child to overcome the
bad effects of the divorce. He may have to work to erase the anti-father programming the
mother could be drowning the child with. He needs to find out how the child is doing
socially, educationally, and physically, and then decide how he can help his child develop
in positive ways.
Some fathers react to the deprivation of contact with their child by treating their
allotted visitation as a time for entertainment. That certainly has a place.
A child's needs may be quite different at different times, depending on how much
time has passed since the family broke up. Especially after a divorce, children are I
confused and unhappy; they are not ready for any type of education or strengthening.
They need comfort and reassurance, and diversion with entertainments is a way to do that.
Entertainment during a weekend with Dad may also help to convince a child that his or her
mother's mantra of vilification of Dad is not true.
A recently divorced father may have a very sad or depressed child to deal with. He
may have to propel his child into some sort of mood-lightening activity for the weekend.
Allowing a sad and unhappy child to simply withdraw is usually not a good prescription
for helping the child to get over it. In other words, entertaining children for a weekend
visitation can be a very positive and useful action.
The visitation father needs to be involved in the entertainment and not simply use it
as a babysitter. That would simply confirm the fears of a child that his or her father does
not want him or her, or that he or she was a cause of the divorce. Both of these are
typical reactions of smaller children to divorce, and they need to be tended to.
Involvement ofthe father in sports, or attending an amusement together, or attempting a
puzzle or computer game together, or exploring a wilderness or a city area together are all
activities that heal the child and help strengthen the parent-child bond. Even plopping
down on the couch next to each other with a video in the VCR means that Dad wants to
p'age.~~~, Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDS Notes.
," --,:; •• ,1,
~.',' ,- -,...
.: /i ..:t,'':''L''~
(-,.\

be with his child, especially if they go out together to make a mutually acceptable
selection. r '. .
After the healing from the divorce has t8ken place, after some months or years, it
is probably no longer necessary to make a weekend with Dad a time for fun and games
alone. The other needs of the child have to be attended to. Furthemiore, if a child
associates his or her father with non-serious activity, he or she may be developing a very
distorted view of him. Children need to learn that their father's life does not revolve
around entertainment, and to appreciate his example as a role model for education and
work. Influencing a child to have good character traits usually takes more than just telling
the child how important they are. It takes setting an example.
It is also not necessary to make a sudden transition from amusements to example-
setting. Weekends may be short, but they can be structured with both kinds of activities.
Playing games with children teaches them how to be good sports, how to behave during
contests, how to concentrate, how to strategize, how to treat losers gracefully, as well as
skills specific to the game. Fixing something With a child present may teach the child how
to approach a problem, how to be neat in dealing with complex tasks, the need to clean up
before and after a task, how to take care of tools, and many other skills that are not just
.useful for fixing appliances but that have a role in solving all kinds of problems. Fathers
should not necessarily be upset when something breaks down and needs repair. Appliance
manufacturers probably have been taking into account the higher needs of their divorced
father clients and planned to make repair work available to them at frequent intervals .
rather than just leaving the fathers with nothing to do but to demonstrate how to get wash
dishes.
Sports and other structured activities also provide a way for a father to be a good
example. Exploring a new area on foot or bike or by car does as well. It teaches habits of
planning ahead, of resourcefulness, of how to notice and appreciate one's surroundings,
whether it be birds in the forest or people on a street. Trying new foods teaches a
willingness to try other new experiences, a crucially valuable skill in a world that is
constantly changing. Almost any activity with complexity gives unspoken examples to the
child. This is one aspect of what psychologists call quality time. It is time when the
presence of the parent makes a big impression on the child.
One aspect of the parent-child relationship that has to be stressed is continuity. If
a child becomes used to one activity, abruptly stopping it may be a bad sign of
unreliability. Better to phase in activities while phasing out others.
The last thing, but perhaps the most important one that has to be included in time
with Dad is listening time, not time when the child listens to Dad, but time when Dad
listens to the child. Listening on a regular basis keeps Dad informed of what is going on in
the child's life, and allows the child to get used to telling dad whatever he wants. If Dad
can keep secret what he has been told, but remembers it the next time they talk, Dad will
have taught his child something very important: that the child has an adult he or she can
trust, one who is reliable and who cares about them without any ulterior motive. Learning
to trust again after a divorce is one of the most important parts of recovery.
 "'
KIDDS NoteS" Page 247

How toSqueezeOut
-. .
More··Visitation
- .

·Time
Most men are allotted a small fraction of their child's time to be with them. One
response to this is to gradually increase visitation time, bit by bit, until something more
satisfactory is reached. There are two routes to take to this.

Many fathers walk out a custody hearing with some token amounts of visitation as
their sole contact with their children. Others walk out with their visitation schedule in the
hands of their ex-wife, as the court simply orders that she grant "reasonable visitation" to
.her ex-husband. Many others haye something substantial, such as alternate weekends, but
got it only as a consolation prize for being denied sole or joint custody. All of them want
more time with their children, and most feel that it would be in the best interests of the
children to get it.
In a situation where there is hostility between the mother and father, it is usually
not likely thatthe custodial mother will initially grant the non-custodial father more time
just because he asks for it. It may be that she actively blocks his visitation, so that he has
little or no contact at all with his children. Even if she does not, she may feel that, despite
whatever she said in court about wanting to encourage visitation, contact with him is not
all that beneficial for the children. Denial of visitation is the most common way that
women get back at their ex-husbands for whatever they blame them for: causing the
divorce, being a loser, not appreciating them, not supporting them, fighting them in court,
or any of a very long list of reasons why ex-wives dislike ex-husbands.
There are essentially two approaches toward getting more visitation time, no
matter how much is already available. One is to work with the ex-wife and the other is to
battle in the courts.
Cooperative ex-wives typically have no problem with visitation expansion. An ex-
wife who feels that her children benefit from contact with their father may actually
encourage him to see more of them. However, child support is set on the basis of how
much time each parent has the children, and if a father were to .get more time with his
children, and the court were to recognize this, he might be entitled to pay less child
support. A non-custodial father has to make a decision as to what his initial interests are.
He can simply forego any decrease in child support. He can let his ex know that he will
not be attempting to change that, but he would like more time with the children. If she
does not trust him, he might have to put in writing that he will continue to pay the existing
level of child support for the next period oftime, say, a year, or until some other event
occurs, such as a move, a change of schools, a child reaching a certain age, or anything
else. It is always possible to agree to pay more child support than the state orders, so that
such an agreement can be enforced by the court.
If the father has two goals, both seeing more of his children and solving his own
dire economic situation, he should not expect that his ex will go along with the change
unless there is something else going on. For example, if she is seeking work or about to
 KiDDSNotes
••• t- •• ;\ '

get a promotion that. will demand m~re of her time, or shifting from part-time to full-time,
or doing anything else that will leave her less available for child custody but provide more
money, then all the father might have to do is to come up with a new visitation plan that is
convenient to both. If he has flexibility at his work, or is unemployed, and can eliminate
the need for his ex to find child care by being available when she is not, he may have a
winning ticket. This is yet one more reason for an ex-husband to do everything in his
power to help his ex-wife advance economically after the major court battles are over and
only custody and visitation are on the line.
Another maneuver to try is to be available when an ex-wife is involved with
someone else, or in searching for a new companion. For example, a father willing to use
his weekends to take care of his children may find himself with every weekend visitation
when his ex meets a new man, or is interested in having her time free to mingle in the
singles scene. Convenience, availability, reliability all tend to make an ex-wife willing to
allow more visitation.
- With a hostile ex-wife, there are two possibilities to try. One is to solve the
,hostility problem. Ifthere is simply one item that causes the hostility, and it is something.
removable and inevitable (the usual example is payment of back support), it might be
useful to simply get it over with, contract whatever debt is necessary to solve that
problem, and then see if the relationship between ex-wife and ex-husband improves to
where he can get more visitation. Many times, however, hostility is very deep-rooted and
nothing that he does or could do will reduce it very much. The obvious move is to reach
her through the children. If she truly cares for the children, and is not simply their
"owner", lacking any deep feeling or understanding of their needs, it may be possible for
the father to explain that having more time with him is beneficial to them. In most cases of
maternal custody situations, time with a father has multiple benefits. If the father
repeatedly but gently keeps reminding her that the children would be better off with more
frequent or longer father time, she may come around to realize it and forego the pleasure
and feeling of power, perhaps even revenge, that denying him contact with his children
brings her.
This may be done in small ways, for example by asking for extra time to do
something special, such as a trip to some relatives or a sports event or theater event. If
the children return to the mother happy and looking forward to more time with Dad, it
might be possible to do it again. Then again, and again, and next, more such events can be
added. A regularly occurring event might be added, such as a family night at a roller rink,
where Dad is willing to go and Mom is not Once this becomes a habit, the ex-wife may
start using that time for purposes of her own, such as shopping, cleaning, or visiting
friends, all of which will make it unlikely that the schedule will be changed. Then staying
overnight might be added occasionally, and then regularly, and so on. Each little addition
is not worth battling over, and if one doesn't work, another one may. Older children are
more likely to have activities they would like to do than very young ones, but even
toddlers have their own set of ways to have fun. Ingenuity and persistence are the keys to
success.
Arguing for more time is not likely to win over a hostile ex-wife to allowing a
father more time with his children. Calmness and behavior that is not likely to bring back
memories of the problems between them might.
 --
KIDDSNotes Page 249

But some women can not be influenced by reasoning about how their children .:
would benefit by more contact with their father. -They think he' is bad -for everyone - " -
because he was bad for them. Their bitterness toward him prevents them from even
thinking that their children might have a different view of'theirfather.rHer sad experiences
have revealed his true character to her, she concludes, and she wouldn't be a good mother
if she did not protect them from him. Besides, he owes her money.
When a man has to contend with a hostile custodial mother intent on depriving his
children of contact with him, he needs to go. back to court. He might find the same
reception there, but with luck, he can make something better happen.
His first step, assuming there is no emergency situation with his children such as
molestation or child abuse, is to press for what the court has already given him. If he has
a prescribed schedule of contact with his children, he needs to get it enforced. But how?
Courts are notorious for not enforcing child visitation. There is no single method of
solving this problem. If there was, it would be used by every deprived father and the
problem would no longer be so common. Instead, a father must try multiple approaches
to see where the weak point of the resistance can be found. First, he needs to make sure
his court orders are tight as to a visitation schedule. If they are not, for example if they
say "reasonable" visitation is required, he needs to go back to court to get "reasonable"
turned into something specific. If the orders are not exact as to pickup times and
locations, they need to be made this way. Only when the orders are clear and .
unambiguous can they be enforced. Then, if clear visitation orders are violated, the father
needs to document the violation. This typically means having witnesses, unless he is sure
that his ex-wife will admit in court that she refused himthe children when he arrived at the
pickup location. The witness needs to be there to verify; in court or in an affidavit, that
the father was where he was supposed to be, when he was supposed to be, and he was
denied visitation. The legal motion to solve this problem is a citation for contempt.
Contempt proceedings do not usually work for a single violation of visitation. A pattern
of violation needs to be demonstrated, typically three or more similar refusals. When this
is ready, it is time to go back to court.
If the father wins this contempt hearing, or it his ex decides to reform instead of
face possible fines or other losses in court, he then has gotten to the point of having his
court-ordered visitation. If there continue to be irregular problems, i.e., half of the time he
gets the children and half the time he gets an excuse, he needs to return to court to have
the pickup point made in some neutral location, if at all possible. With very small children
who are completely in the care of their mother, this will not work, but with older children,
in child care or in school, it can, provided his schedule allows him to pick them up there.
Alternately, he can arrange for a relative or a friend to pick them up after school ifhe can
locate a volunteer for this. Having the children enrolled in after school daycare might be a
solution; many large daycare facilities have a pickup service that goes to neighborhood
schools at the various closing times and retrieves children enrolled in the daycare facility's
after school program. Then the father can pick up his children there, on a regular basis, on -
those days that he is going to have afternoon or evening visitation. He may have to pay a
bit extra ifhe only wants Friday service, to coincide with his weekend visitation schedule,
or perhaps he can make some other arrangement with them. Some public schools also
Page 250 Version Date: May 29, 1994
I ••• ." ~ '". •

have an after school program, which could alsoserve as a way to. ensurethat.hischildren
were available to. him when the court order says they should be~:' '-', ,', ' ' ,",
A father who. has to. go. through this much trouble to. getcourt-ordered visitation
enforced, which might entail getting the court to. order the mother.to allow the children to.
go. to. the daycare facility, probably has a good chance of increasing his visitation time on
the spot. It certainly wouldn't hurt to. ask for more visitation at the time that he is
demonstrating to. the court that his ex-wife has frustrated his court-ordered visitation, He
can only be refused. There have been a few cases where the court was so. hostile to.
fathers that this request was used to. reduce their visitation schedule. IIthis happens, the
father must realize that he has to. bring out the bigger guns and stop playing nice guy. The
court has to. be changed.
The first fact for the father to. figure out is where the problem is: the custody
evaluator or the judge him or herself. Often a judge simply rubber stamps whatever the
person he or she designates to. give a recommendation says and wouldn't particularly mind
if the father got more or less time with his children. Then it is necessary to. go. through the
process of changing the person who does the custody evaluation, and it should be done
before any visitation changes are made. ' That means that the father must find out for
himself before the recommendation is laid before the court, what it is going to. include.
The procedures for this may be simply calling the evaluation person and asking; alternately
it might involve doing a deposition, i.e., a formal questioning of the evaluator. This is
often a good idea anyway, as it allows the father to. learn more about where the evaluator's
biases are.
If the problem is With the judge, then it is more difficult. A judge cannot simply
a
decide to. give his case to. so.me other judge, and father cannot simply decide to. switch
judges. Under the myth of fairness, judges are chosen for the length of the process. They
can only be changed for what is called "prejudice" in legal jargon, meaning something like
a conflict of interest exists, or "bias," meaning you have evidence that the judge hates you
because of some trait you have, for example, your ethnic group. Both of these are almost
never used. An alternative is complaining about the judge to. his superiors. Sometimes
this may work, especially in a large area where judges are rotated frequently. The
supervising judge, ifhe gets many complaints about a particular judge, may rotate him out
to. some other area of law. But this is also a long shot. Switching lawyers to. someone
who. is personally close to. the judge may help, for example, a golf buddy or a member of a
law firm where the judge's so.nworks or someone who. shares the same investment
interest. Figuring out what the judge's objections to. a particular father are might help, i.e.,
does he characteristically deny visitation to. low-income fathers and grant it to. high-income
fathers? This might take a bit of court monitoring before a pattern develops, but spending
some vacation time in a courtroom might just provide the insight into. what make the judge
tick. Of course, asking for advice on his preferences and predilections from other fathers
or lawyers is an obvious way to. find this out.
If nothing else works, this leaves an appeal. Appeals on visitation have to. be done '
very carefully, with preparation in the original courtroom. In fact, all lower court activity
should be done with the idea in mind that if the judge is unreasonable, his decisions have
to. be appealed. Sometimes the preparation for an appeal is so.unmistakable that the judge
will modify his refusal to help a father in order that the appeal will not be necessary, This
 • i .-'.:..~'~ .•••. !""C.· , ~ ".,; .
. .
KiDDS 'Notes Version Date: May 29,' i'994 Page 251

is good politics. Judges whose rulings are often appealed are responsible for increasing
the workload of the higher courts. It might be wondered why they can't manage to
produce some more balanced judgments that leave both parties with enough benefit that
neither one wants to appeal. .
Some judges couldn't care less about how much they are appealed. They have
little contact with other judges, have given up hope of any promotion to higher courts or
better courtrooms, and just live to daily rule over their own territory. With someone like
that, the appeal has to be done properly and won. This is the maximum amount of
struggle that is necessary, and if there is any way to avoid it, that way should be given
heavy consideration. Appeals are long and involved, and, unless done in pro per,
expensive. It certainly is true that no amount of money can ever repay a father for the loss
of his children, but at some point practical considerations have to playa part in his
struggle. It is true that appeals are somewhat more fun than normal court hearings, but
the price of the fun is high.
Page 252, Ve!l>ionDate: May 29,1994,.
'" , \" .}. ".~',. 1 v. ...••:·,1,> ./

,>,/
J

••
 : ,. , .;: I ~

Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 253

Doing visitation well is one of the most common responsibilities of a divorced

father. There are certain guidelines that should be followed with a child, especially
involving interference with his activities and friends.

If you haven't been lucky enough to win at least joint custody and not unlucky
enough to be completely cut off from your child by claims of abuse; molestation, criminal
behavior, drugs or something else, you are stuck in the world of visitation. The majority
of fathers live in this version of prison. While you are working to gain more access to
your child, you have the task of doing visitation well. You need to make your absence
least harmful to your child and get the most out of the contact you have.
Visitation can be demoralizing for both the parent and child, unless you take
special pains to make it work. . You need to make it work as it is the only connection
tJ
you
have with your child, other than telephone calls. Any connection is better than a complete
break and, perhaps, someday your child may be able to come to live with you and you will
have a chance to share your life with him or her. First you must solve the problenis of
visitation. Visitation is usually scheduled on weekends or, less rarely, on evenings during
the week. More distant fathers are often given a block of visitation during summer
vacation or during school vacations. These block visitations do not have the interference
problem that weekend or evening visitation does.
With babies and young children, visitation is rarely a problem once you have the
child. Your ex may put you through hell trying to discourage your visitation and may be
as nasty as rabid dog when you arrive to pick up your child, but once you get through the
transition, all these problems blur out and you can concentrate on being a real father.
Life changes with older children. An older child forms mends and has activities
around his26 custodial home, even at ages as young as six or so. If you have visitation on
weekends or evenings, you may be disrupting his schedule or keeping him from normal
childhood activities. He may prefer to do his own activities during your scheduled
visitation time, which could mean not seeing you. His mother may encourage this if she
wants, for some reason, to thwart your visitation. It may also happen that your child's
activities demand his attendance somewhere during your time. Sports, musical groups,
scouting, 4H, and many other activities schedule meetings on weekends and evenings.
Even homework and school projects can interfere with your visitation, but you should be
prepared and capable of assisting with schoolwork so that this is not a serious problem.
Social activities are different. This is the visitation interference problem. .Don't feel
rejected if your child makes it clear that his social activities are more important than
something you planned or even seeing you.
A child may have had to listen to his mother denigrating you, over and over again,
and may therefore think nothing of trying to avoid seeing you. He may be trying to please
his mother by denying you something, and the only thing he has to deny you is his time

26 or her, of course.
Page 254 'Version Date: May 29. 1994 KiDDSNotes
...~ ~--".·2 !
0-t.(~ . ~ .. '1.iif"'1: .::.,.:_ .-'.' i- . _ • ;~

and affection. You could be the person he blames, on the basis of what he has been told,
for the divorce or-for problems that his 'mother tells him about. Usually this means money.
He may ha~e absorbed a great deal of pain in the breakup of his parents, and seeing you
could simply bring back unpleasant memories. It could remind him of the more pleasant
life he had before the divorce happened. His activities may be his way of forgetting the
unhappiness that he experiences in living with his mother, and he may not want to be away
from his major source of relief. He won't necessarily know why he doesn't want to spend
time with you, as these feelings can be completely unrecognized by him.
Children in divorced families have often had to endure more mature feelings than
children who do not go through the experience. To be a good parent you need to be
sensitive to his experiences and feelings. Listen and adapt. If you are the kind of person
who always talks about himself: you need to figure out how to become the listener your
child needs.
First of all, keep your priorities straight, don't get depressed and do see your child,
weekend after weekend, year after year. Make it your job to find ways to interact with
him so that the activities are not unpleasant. If he is in sports, and needs to go to a game,
take him if at all possible. If he wants to see a particular friend, perhaps you could take
them both somewhere pleasant, like a park, a skating rink, a fishing spot, or a ball game.
Get involved in his life, and don't try to drag him over into yours. It won't work. You will
alienate your child .
.By losing custody, you gave up the right to be the person to help him determine his
activities and schedules. Now you are in the status of a visiting relative. You can advise,
suggest, or recommend. In fortunate situations, your ex may be cooperative and still
respect your opinions when you give them about your child's activities. She may choose
to follow your advice, but she may also choose to do the opposite. You are very limited
in your influence and control. You may think that a certain kind of activity is completely
unacceptable for your child, but unfortunately, you have little that you can do about it.
You cannot withhold support payments to gain influence without expecting unpleasant
responses in court or by a support collecting agency of the state. If you use visitation time
as an extension of the battle with your ex by trying to get him to influence his mother into
following your opinions, you are in serious danger of hurting your child and ruining your
chance to have more contact or custody of him later on. If you argue with your ex about
your child's activities, he may be told of it or overhear the argument, and have less interest
than before in seeing you. Your goal should be more time with your child, not remote
control of his' life. When you have achieved an adequate amount of visitation or even joint
custody, then you can start to influence his choices of what activities he prefers. While
you have limited contact, limit your disagreement with his mother's choice of activities to
simply calmly discussing them and offering alternatives. You can introduce him to other
choices during a visitation, but do not get him to commit to any change until after you
have custody of some sort.
Secondly, you have to remain aware of what your child is engaged in so that you
can do even a minimal job of being a secondary parent. A parent who is hardly aware of
what his child's interests are is failing in his job of parenting. If you do not pay any
attention to your child's preferences, you reduce your chances of having your child tell
you that he want to switch custody to you later. After the age of fourteen, and sometimes
KIDDSNotes Page 255

as young as eleven,. the wishes of a child are taken into account by a court. Keep the
dream of having custody, sole or joint, of your child ever present in your mind, and work
toward that end. Let your love for your child overcome your desire to control his life
when you cannot hope to do so. Raising your and his level offiustration cannot help
either of you.
Even if it is many years until your child reaches that age, there are many situations
that can arise that will make it possible for you to obtain joint or sole custody. Your wife
may want to move away. She may remarry someone whom your child finds unpleasant, or
who has children of his own who clash with your child. Your ex may get run over by a
truck, become an alcoholic, or decide to go off to Hollywood to be in the movies. Things
happen. If you are always there, weekend after weekend, youare establishing and
maintaining your relationship with.your child, you also are proving to your ex that if she
ever did want to take a sabbatical, that you could easily handle custody, and, lastly, you
are establishing with the court your reliability and your concern. .
You can even be building up a case for direct assault on the custody decision. This
is a difficult action to succeed with unless your ex makes some serious mistakes, but it is
not totally impossible. Reopening a custody decision requires what the law refers to as a
"change of circumstances", but some judges will interpret that broadly enough to include
changing houses or schools, or a child getting into trouble, or a custodial mother letting
someone move in with her, or a whole host of situations. If you are ready to move
forward immediately with a collection of substantial evidence at that point, you might be
rewarded with custody of one form or another. If not, you have enjoyed a lot of
weekends.
 .', ,,(.
,'.:';,':'

KiDDSNotes
,~
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 257'

Staying Close

Staying in the neighborhood of his children is the best move that a father can
make. He then can be there when they need him, monitor their care, stay in touch
with schools and friends, and be ready to seek custody if his ex decides to leave the
area.

You can't do much for visitation or continuing to press for custody if you aren't
around your children. There are two aspects to this location problem. One is keeping
your ex from taking the children far away from you, and the other is you not leaving the
area.
Location is the one area' where men have a few feeble rights as fathers. Remember
that "stability" is the big club that evaluators and judges use to deprive men ofcustody.
The argument goes that, since divorce is disruptive, the best interests of the children mean
that everything else should stay as constant, i.e., stable, as possible. Since the mother had
more time with the children before the marriage ended, they assume she should have
custody. The argument never goes that since the father was with his children 40% of the
time before the separation started, he should have them at least this much after it. That
would be too stable. Instead, stability is used to justify temporary orders being made
permanent. Some dodge is used to move the husband from his domicile, which means the
children don't see him very much for this period. Then "stability" insists that this
arrangement, rather than the previous pre-kickout one, continue.
This "stability" is also the excuse for depriving men of their house -- the children
were used to living in the house and they should stay there, independent of anything else,
so the ex-wife gets exclusive use of the house. It doesn't matter that this tied up the man's
only asset for years. It doesn't matter that the children soon got used to living during
visitation at their father's new home, even though it might just be a tiny apartment.
But when it comes to the wife moving away from the children's SChool, friends,
sports groups, and everything else that is familiar to them, even the most creative sexist
bigot can't come up with an argument why this is more stable than giving custody to the
father, assuming he is still there and still in constant contact with the children. When the
ex-wife moves, she often loses custody. Hooray!
This means, that to keep this possibility open, the father seeking custody must stay
in the vicinity of his children. Despite a commute, better living conditions elsewhere,
better job opportunities, or whatever, staying fixed keeps open one of the few avenues
where a man can get custody awarded by the court.
There is a second reason for staying close. If distance eliminates the possibility of
frequent visitation, perhaps restricting it to a few major holidays a year and summertime,
the father does not have the opportunity to monitor his children's physical and
psychological health. Children, especially small children, can be hurt by a mother or her
live-in companions, and a distant father would never hear about it. Children rarely talk
about such things on a telephone. They need to be seen in person. Frequent contact

\
Page 258: Version Date: May 29,1994, KiDDS Notes ~

maintains the trust between a father and his children. Trust allows the children to talk
freely. Freely given talk may open the father's eyes to what is happening to his children.
Being close allows the father to have frequent contact with the baby-sitters, day
care workers, teachers, and others who have contact with their children. It provides
someone for these people to report their concerns to. Ifa child is ill-fed when he goes to
daycare, and the father is absent, who is there to talk to? If the mother is visibly rough
and physical with small children, and it shocks the baby-sitter, who does he or she have to
discuss this with if the father has gone away and only comes by a few times a year? If the
mother is thrown out of a daycare facility because of her temper or rudeness or lack of
care, how would the father know unless he was a familiar, friendly face there? His ex
would simply tell him some story about how she found a better facility. If the school is
having problems with a child, either academically or behaviorally, who is the school to talk
to if the mother doesn't seem to care or doesn't seem to respond to their information? If
she is so wrapped up in her own life that she simply can't be bothered with the children,
the father needs to know about it. If he knows the child's teacher very well, from having
met him or her multiple times, then he can get a clear picture of his child's behavior and an
insight into his life.
How close is close? If the father is in the same neighborhood as the mother, and
keeps in contact with neighbors, they may feel it necessary to tell him about a parade of
men streaming through his ex's house. He may notice them himself, or be told by his
children if he sees them every week.
Many people feel compassion and care for children, and get upset at mothers who
are always screaming at little toddlers and hauling them around like dogs on a leash. A
friend of the family might make a call to let the father know, if the friend continues to have
contact with the father and knows about his care for the children. The friend may have
seen the inside of the home, and realized that there is nothing there that passes for
hygienic. Neighbors might notice that ajust-walking one-year-old is wandering
unattended, or had to be retrieved by others and brought back to their mother -- who may
not have even known they were gone. The father needs to know if his children's lives are
being threatened by a motr.er who does not keep track of them so that he can do
something about it. A fatfily friend who sees her liquor supply being drained by a mother
might want to let the father know that the children are getting little supervision by a parent
constantly inebriated. Baby-sitters might be appalled at the condition of the mother when
she returns from carousing or might be shocked that she returns with a bar pick-up. Who
do they talk to if the father is not around? Coming home drunk to children is not a crime;
screaming at children is not a crime; the police are inappropriate here. Many, many
concerned people do not want to get involved with state child protection agencies. They
can talk to the father if they know him, but that might be the limit to what they would do.
A father mayor may not know what idiosyncrasies his ex-wife is capable of She
may have used drugs before the marriage and only given them up because of his influence.
Divorce may lead to enough temptation for her to go back to that bad excuse for a life. A
distant father can't find out about this or any other addiction. Does the mother spend her
child support money on her own clothes, jewelry, haircuts, gambling or other
entertainment and dress her children in Salvation Army handouts or worse? Do little
children get to live on Twinkie fare? Do they have to forage around the house looking for
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 259

something to eat while the mother is asleep in her bedroom with her lover? Are the
children often suffering from sunburn, insect bites, untreated scratches and scrapes, or
worse: bruises and marks of unknown origin? Do the children wander around like lost
children or do they have organized activities? Do they have friends or are they always
sitting despondently playing alone? Are they deprived of normal activities like sports or
nature trips? The father will never know if he leaves the area.
There is simply no reason other than economic or emotional survival for a father to
leave his children to an ex-wife and exit the area, seeing them only rarely or occasionally.
Fathers can be incredibly naive in going through divorce; the same naivete after they lose
custody can lead them to trust that their ex is doing all that should be done for the children
and that he doesn't need to monitor the situation. There is simply no excuse for making
these mistakes, as the price for stupidly trusting can be devastating to the children
involved. A father does not lose his responsibility for his children's future just because
some bigoted judge refused to let him have care of them. He shouldn't leave the area to
help him forget the losses he incurred unless he has no way to financially survive or to give
him some breathing room and help him feel better and come back stronger. He needs to
stay in the game until it's over, and it's not over until the children are properly reared and
on their way to being successful adults.
Page2?O. Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
IGDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 261

Little Spies "

If volunteers and private investigators can not resolve your suspicions about abuse
or neglect of your children. can you ask them? "Young children, even abused ones, are
not reliable. You need to go slowly.

You love your children deeply and sincerely. You are in the midst of divorce or
are a walking wounded, a survivor of divorce court. Your ex-wife has custody, maybe
50%, 75%, 95%, or 99%. You are sending her a large fraction of your income and have
lost control of your former assets. You want your children to be well taken care of, but
you have doubts about your ex's capabilities or interests there. Perhaps she appears to
have put professional promiscuity above what you regard as your children's best interests.
Perhaps she seems to be spending the child support money on her boyfriend's criminal
lawyer. Perhaps you have noticed your children wandering around seemingly hungry and
uncared for. Perhaps the school calls you because your child has become uncontrollable.
Perhaps a child of yours shows up at your residence with a whip mark stretching across
his face. What "can you do?
Fathers have had to deal with all these problems and many more. They are made
much more difficult to deal with by two factors: child protection agencies are
overburdened with complaints and many officials regard fathers complaining about
thers with suspicion. The court is as likely to listen to your worries as bacon is likely
to m back into a pig. To do anything, you need mountains of corroborated evidence.
~ ere does it come from? "
There is some volunteer information, There are decent people who care about
other people's children. Neighbors, teachers or family friends might report to you on what
they notice. Few of them are willing to go to court for you, but they might give you an
affidavit, which is a document in which they state facts as they know them, and then sign a
statement at the end swearing what they wrote is true. Courts regard these are a sign of
cowardice, and a violation of the right of the accused to confront their accuser, even
though divorce is not a criminal venue. But they are still worth something. If the
information that a volunteer can provide is more substantial, you might want to have a
deposition, i.e., a legal interview, done by a lawyer or do one yourself if you are
representing yourself in court. But beware the volunteer who tells you something
privately, but then when required to make a public statement, hedges or backs down,
leaving you with nothing useful for court. People want to help, but they often do not want
to get involved in legal formalities or to lose their anonymity.
There are professional investigators. You can spend some money having someone
monitor your ex and count the number of men who drift in and out of her residence, or
have them take pictures of unattended children. Some private investigators are like some
lawyers in that they are professional time-billers. Give them an account, and they will
empty it. Others are real problem-solvers and go right out collecting information you can
use. PI's sometimes violate privacy rules, but this is usually at their own risk. However,
hiring a PI can be regarded as an act of harassment in court. If you don't have anything to
Page 262 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes

show for it, it may completely destroy any story you are trying to convey and leave you
looking like a vindictive ex-husband rather, than a concerned father. You need to find a PI
who has done what you need before, preferably covertly. You also need to define the data
you want to get in terms of particular observations or photographs, and then to follow up
to make sure that this is what the PI is doing.
Investigators can collect also information from other people by interviewing them,
but their information is what is called "hearsay", i.e., second-hand anecdotes. This is often
not even allowed to be presented in court and might only serve as leads for better
evidence. Photos are acceptable in court, but you may find yourself surprised on the
interpretation that can be placed on them. Furthermore, if they appear to be violating the
privacy of your ex-wife, you can find yourself in more trouble.
This leaves the one direct source for information on neglect, abuse and other
malevolent behavior by your ex, your children themselves. Can you get information that is
reliable from them, and if so, can you use it to help them? Young children, up to about 8
years old, are not really aware of what truth is. They can change their stories. For
example, they can tell their preschool teacher that the bruises on their head are from
mommy, but when a policemen comes by to scare them into giving them a usable
statement, they say they fell down, especially if mommy has had a chance to talk to them
about how policemen will hurt her or take them away if they say anything about what
happens inside their home. Children are often whirled around emotionally by a divorce,
and they don't know what to believe or who to trust with what information. A child may
realize his or her parents are often contradicting one another, and their former life has
been completely transformed. Children in divorce situations often say whatever they think
someone wants them to. Their testimony is unreliable. So, how do you stop physical
abuse if it is happening, much less milder forms of poor care?
Determining if your children need rescuing is not easy. You may not be suited for
it. Don't forget that you have just been financially devastated by your ex-spouse, and may
want to hear bad about her. You may be giving that message to your child. You may
have been ruined by your spouse's perjury, offended by her attacks on your character, and
are struggling daily with the problems she has imposed on you. Your child may want to
say something to console you. It may not be the truth.
Another problem stems from the pain a child feels when his or her parents quarrel
or spar with each other in court. How can your child confide in you when he or she
expects that the battling between the two of you ex-parents will be made worse ifhe or
she says anything? To stop this, insulate the children from your side of the battle. Let
your home be a refuge from the divorce situation, not a war zone.
Furthermore, children in divorce often feel abysmally low in self-esteem. They
may feel they deserve abuse or neglect. Your spouse may have even told them they do.
Crazy women do say such things. Other women are completely ignorant of the bad effects
they are having on their children. Your children may be ashamed to tell you about what
happens because they feel it will make you think poorly of them. They have interpreted
the neglect or abuse as a confirmation that something is wrong with them, and they don't
want to have to tell you about it and have you know it as well.
The road to follow is to give the children love and attention to the maximum that
you can, and to fight for more custody continually. Your children, up to the teenage
 -.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 263

years, must be helped to recover before they can provide you with any information that
can help you to help them in getting into a better custody situation. Recovery is not
something that happens in a week; it is a months long process, perhaps even years long.
Of course you can observe them and look for any bruises, but if your ex is
committing such abuse, she may be smart enough to deny you visitation until the marks
become ambiguous. Neglect is not so obvious, nor is the sabotage of a child's self-esteem.
You need to simply be as supportive as you can. In a few words, be the best parent you
can, without giving up. As your children get older, they can better cope with the
psychological injuries inflicted by a crazy parent, provided that they have one parent who
is clearly on their side, continually providing them with stability and care, continually being
there to talk to them when they need to talk. All this will take a toll on you, so you need
to keep yourself strong. When times are most difficult, you may find some strength by
remembering that your children may have no one else on Earth who is so interested in
them and who will be there for them. No one else to turn to. No one else to trust. You
must persevere.
Page 264 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 265

Reporting Abuse

Knowing who to report to and how to document abuse is important for any father
to learn. The realities of abuse reporting and response is also important to know, as it
helps a father know what he must do to end it.

When you have discovered what you feel is evidence that your children have been
physically or sexually abused, you need to ensure that it is correctly reported and correctly
treated and that your children are fully insulated from its recurrence. You may also
attempt to have your children given therapy to help them recover from the psychological
effects of the abuse and of the situation in which it occurred.
There are three different primary reporting possibilities. One is the police. If you,
or someone else such as a daycare worker or a teacher detects what seems to be signs of
abuse and calls the police, an officer will come out to talk to the child and take a report.
Secondly, California has an agency called Child Protective Services, which is tasked to
specifically deal with child abuse situations; other states may have similar agencies. These
agencies have social workers who go to homes and schools to take reports from the child
concerning abuse. Lastly, you might also report it to a trained child abuse specialist,
usually a psychologist, in private practice. However, abuse is required to be reported to
one of the first two categories, and the third type is a secondary report. The only instance .
in which the psychology specialist can be the first reporter is when the abuse is not
currently happening, i.e., has occurred some years ago, and the psychologist is attempting
to help the child recover repressed memories of that situation as part of a therapy process.
You may also need to bring the child to a medical doctor to treat the physical effects of
the abuse, or to verify if it has happened.
If you have a choice of whom to report to, the logical choice is to establish a
contact within the abuse agency who is competent. Calling a police officer typically
means, unless you are in a large city with some very specialized divisions, you will get a
patrol officer to come over and talk to your child. This is a scary process for young
children, and the younger the child, the less likely it will be that the officer will be able to
piece together a true story. Officers are typically not gentle, sensitive people who can
relate to a child and comfort him or her enough to achieve a calm state before getting a
report. Similarly, many social workers from the abuse agency are so inured to repeated
viewing of child abuse that they simply want to get the report over with and get through
their case load. It is hard to imaging what a career of interviewing battered and molested
children must be like; it is hard to imagine not being burned out after a very short time.
Yet some workers manage, through more self-control than most of us are gifted with, to
continue to act as a child's friend and to work with a child to determine if suspected abuse
is abuse. Contacting a particular agent is sometimes possible, once one of these gems has
been located. Otherwise, the same result may occur as with a police officer: the child is
too frightened and confused to give a coherent report. In any case, insist on having a
report written and an investigation done. It puts the alleged abuser on notice that she or
he is being monitored.
Page 266 Version Date: Ma~ 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
, '

. Having the abuse reported may put an end to it immediately, if your ex-wife or
whoever else, her friend, relative or new husband, is doing the abuse is able to control her
or himself (Although most abuse occurs in mother-headed households, it is committed in
approximately equal amounts by men and women -- another mark of gender equality.)
Sometimes abusers cannot bring themselves to stop, as the abuse happens as part of an
explosive feeling of anger or rage that occurs without warning.
Several things can go wrong with the process of protecting your child. First, your
ex-wife may have impressed your child with the need to lie about the abuse. Little
children have no need to tell the truth, and will readily believe their mother if she tells
them that they will die if they tell, or their mother will die, or they will be taken away, or
any of a number of other threatening possibilities. This makes the psychological effects of
the abuse especially bad, and also allows it to continue if your ex feels so in control of the
child that she can continue the abuse and have it escape correct assessment. Whether or
not this can occur depends on the nature of the abuse, i.e., whether it can, by any stretch
of the imagination, pass as the result of an accident. Some types of physical injury can not
be anything but purposefully inflicted. In this situation, your ex-wife's response can not
depend on coercing the child to lie about it, but in pleading that she is capable of
controlling her actions and will never let things get out of hand again. It doesn't stop her
from committing the first kind of abuse, that which can appear as an accident.
It may appear surprising that a child protective services officer or a lawyer from
the district attorney's office, which should prosecute child abusers, will allow such a
pleading to eliminate any consequences of prosecution for child abuse. But it does happen
frequently, especially with women. The same feeling that judges, lawyers, custody
evaluators, and others have about dealing with mothers, that leads to the prejudice that
fathers continually have to struggle against, also plays a role here. Prosecuting a mother is
the last resort for most professionals in the child abuse area, especially if she can make a
pretended show of contrition, shame or sorrow. Furthermore, government agencies such
as the CPS and the DA's office are typically overworked, with large case loads for each
professional, and the easy way out is often taken. This may mean that your child's abuse
has occurred and nothing will ever be done about it. It may also mean that your child will
have to endure more of it before it becomes so obvious that the agencies will step in and
act.
In a situation where your child is a baby or still too young to know what is
happening, only the collection of medical reports is going to make any difference. As
agonizing as it is, this is the only solution allowed by our current system of justice, other
than running away with the child. In the situation where abuse is happening and the child
is telling the reporter from the police or CPS that it comes from accidents, you can do
something more if you have enough visitation or custody time with the child to take him
or her to a specialist who can help him or her to reveal what actually is happening. In this
case you need to pick a competent person who has a history of helping children in these
situations.
Psychology is a crowded field, like law, and it is easy to pick someone who simply
is not very good at their job. The only requirement to be a practicing psychologist is to
get the proper educational credentials. There is almost no scrutiny within the profession,
just as there is virtually none within the legal profession. In both situations, the only time
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 267

a person is prevented from practicing is if they commit illegal acts of some specified
magnitude. No competence checks are done. This means that you must do the
competence check. As with a lawyer, you should seek references from people who have
had contact with the psychologist and from people who deal in the field. Perhaps your
lawyer knows a particularly good one. A capable men's rights group might also make it
one of their tasks to compile a database on these professionals.
Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 269

Psychological Abuse
-- The Invisible Crime
Physical abuse can be directly stopped by a father who monitors his children. But
psychological abuse is too subtle to be thwarted using the usual legal methods. Only
seeking sole custody, and taking the child away from the abuser ends it.

Physical abuse is a tough problem, but it can often be dealt with successfully.
Since most child abuse occurs in mother-headed families, a father without sole custody
needs to be ever vigilant.
If you were to find bruises or welts on your children when they return to you from
your ex-wife, your response is clear. You need to find out the circumstances, and if your
ex or someone connected with her was responsible, to document what happened and to
call in some of the state functionaries who are supposed to deal with such crimes. If the
happenings are serious, repeated, and the children will tell the officials, in a believable
way, what happened, abuse charges might be brought against your wife. This is unlikely,
except in extreme cases, but at least you will put her on notice that it has to stop and that
you are monitoring the situation. You may well prevent any reoccurrence by doing this
alone. Terminating the behavior may be the best that you can do. It may require constant
attention on your part to ensure that it is stopped and stays stopped, but to rescue your
children from physical abuse is a tremendous benefit to them. Helping your children is
what life is all about anyway.
You also need to be alert to maneuvers that your ex might take to prevent you
from detecting what happens. Perhaps she knows she goes into uncontrollable rages, but
believes, rightly or wrongly, that she can overcome it. Perhaps it comes from drinking,
and she feels that as long as she stays dry, there will be no problem. Her perceptions may
be correct or they may be just fantasy on her part, but she might also conclude that she
needs time to overcome this and the safest way to preserve her rights to the children is to
prevent you from detecting any "accidental" recurrence. She could go to change the
custody and visitation arrangements so that you do not see the children frequently.
Perhaps she tries to move away, and tries to switch your custody to major holidays and
summers only. Then she only has to be on best behavior for the week or two before the
transition. You need to be alert to such moves and object to them.
Another tell-tale sign would be when she interferes with your taking the children
according to a scheduled exchange. Perhaps they need to heal up for a week, while the
bruises can fade away. This is another warning signal. By trying to track her actions, and
thwart them, you may be able to continue to monitor your children's welfare and prevent a
tragedy from recurring.
While you do have some ammunition to use against a physically abusive ex-wife,
you are disarmed with respect to psychological abuse. There are no visible signs of psy-
abuse and almost no way to document its extent or its effects. Yet it can be responsible
for ruining the life of a child. It does not just bother them, it leaves deep programming
 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
Page 270

that will last for a lifetime. The proper word is "ruining". It is not something that time
erases easily, or that can be cured except by years of help and restoration.
What is psychological abuse? It means training the child for failure by destroying
his or her self-esteem. There are many ways a mother can do this to her child, just as
there are many ways to physically hurt a child. It is also much easier for the mother to
convince herself that she has not done anything. There is no mark on the child's mind that
can be seen. She can be a constant source of psy-abuse, and yet seriously believe that she
is an excellent mother. She can come up with the most credible and believable portrayal
of herself as a mother who cares and who deserves custody. She can honestly, in her own
mind, blame any of the symptoms of her abuse on external causes, such as the schools, the
divorce, new surroundings, or most popularly, the father. She can believe this and go on,
day after day, eating away at her children's self-confidence like a steady drip of corrosive
acid eats metal.
How-does it happen? Children respond to their parents' views of them. A
constant diet of negative criticism, untempered by praise and appreciation, means that they
see themselves as incapable of doing anything right. Criticism is necessary to correct
behavior and needs to applied in order to teach children how to do the thousands of tasks
of life. But if it is done poorly, the child learns that he or she is not capable of getting
anything right. This means that nothing will be attempted, and the child's natural drive to
do well will be thwarted. Passivity, depression, truancy, and worse responses are the ..
outlet for a hypercriticized child.
Yet if the child's mother grew up in an environment like that, it will seem natural
for her to repeat it. She may think she is only saying things like they really are, and to
someone with a distorted view of life, it may seem that she is being honest and forthright
when she attacks the children. She may think that kids have to be tough and the way to
toughen them is to let them know when they do anything wrong. Her wrong views of
child development may shield her from knowing what she is doing. And she may have
such strong views that no one can change them, least of all the father of the children,
whom she sees as simply looking for excuses to cover up what he is responsible for.
Emphasis on failure is another means of psy-abuse. The child does well and the
mother does nothing. The child has a bad quarter in school, and he or she is comforted by
being told that it's okay to not do well -- which is fine -- and that some people are simply
not able to do as well as others -- possibly okay but unnecessary-- and that the child
should stop trying to overcome the slip-up and just learn to live with it -- the abuse.
"Don't try too hard because you probably won't succeed and you'll just make yourself
unhappy. I'll still love you if you take it easy." Rewarding and reinforcing failure
programs the child to fail in order to fit in with his or her mother's expectations. If the
mother is not a success, she may bask in the knowledge that the child is like her, and not
like the father who has done better. This is one extremely important reason why any child
should be with the parent who can provide the most successful example.
Of course, cross-couplings can occur. A mother could have been reared in a
family where one child was programmed for success, while she was not. She could give
her children the success programming instead of her own. No simple universal rule such
as "Give custody to the most successful parent," can be the only guideline. Each family is .
KiDDSNotes VersionDate: May 29,1994 Page 271

different. But even more strongly true is that the current system of giving custody almost
always to the mother hurts children more than anything else.
Rather than hurting her child by reliving her own upbringing, a custodial mother
may be happy to see a child fail and to reinforce it for vindictive reasons .. If she knows the
father puts great stock in having his children do well, then seeing them fail in school, get
into drugs, or be involved in other problems may provide a sense of victory. She has
taken the most important hope possible away from the man she hates. Another reason for
a mother to encourage problems or fail to seek meaningful solutions is that problems
promote dependency. A child who isa runaway success doesn't need her help, especially
if she has little to offer as a career role model. But a problem child needs mothering.
There are many other modes of responding that teach children to see themselves as
losers and then to live up to that vision. There are many other reasons that a mother
might do so, almost always with the belief that her care is the best possible and what she is
doing is what the children need. She may honestly believe herself about this. She may
find friends to reinforce those views. But the result is the same. The children grow up
abused and incapable of accomplishing more than a fraction of what they could have, had
they remained unabused. _
If a father sees this or another kind of psychological abuse occurring to his
children, what are his options? There is no way that he can document the effects of his ex-
wife's custody or visitation. Psychology is not that advanced. The mother can easily
blame any of a variety of causes, including the father. Telling the difference is perhaps not
possible, even for a trained professional. Very obvious, blatant cases can be sorted out,
but psy-abuse is something that occurs gradually, over a long period of time, meaning that
no cause and effect relationship comes into view. There is no single act, such as in
physical abuse, that can be pointed to. There is no weapon as might be in physical abuse.
There is only the mother's tongue. The child does not recognize what is being done, as he
or she would in physical abuse. He does not have a physical pain that he can relate to a
particular act that his mother has done. He is just depressed, or disobedient, or confused,
or rebellious, or something else that cannot be connected to the programming that chewed
away at his or her self-esteem.
Law works on the basis of evidence. In the case of psychological abuse, there is
no evidence. Expert testimony is also used in law, but besides the major expense of hiring
one or more experts, there is little assurance that they will be able to agree on even the
type of psychological theories that govern people's minds, much less over what happened
to a particular child. There is little hope that any particular one will be able to help resolve
the causes of the problem. It would also be necessary to obtain a court order to have your
ex-spouse cooperate with any psychologists, which would be hard to get and harder to
enforce.
Much the same happens in other, more familiar, uses of psychology. A common
rule for seeking counseling over personal problems is to visit several psychologists until
you find one who is compatible with you. The same goes for children. Psychologists are
people with theories; they are all different. In court, a father would only be able to make a
single choice, and there is no guarantee that the outcome would be meaningful, or even
that it would not be the exact opposite of what actually was the case. Psychologists and
other specialists can be as biased and bigoted as judges and lawyers about which sex
Page 272 Version Date: May 29. 1994 KiDDSNotes

should have custody of children. You may not believe that any trained professional would
state that she felt that only mothers were proper custodians for children; you would be
wrong. Be forewarned.
The answer is that there may be no solution via the channels known and approved
by the court. Psychological abuse is too intangible and squishy for courts to do a good job
on. This means that it is up to the father of the victimized children to respond.
First of all, he needs to treat the child gently and do his utmost to slow down the
damage done by his ex's actions .. Praise, counseling, patience are all needed in huge
quantities. He needs to understand his children's psychology as best as he possibly can,
and this may mean having other people help him. He, operating by himself has the
opportunity to interview psychologists and other therapists to see who seems to have a
handle on the problem. On his own, he can seek help for his children. Of course, this
takes money, and the court, not agreeing with the psychological abuse, is not likely to let
him off the hook for other payments he is tasked to make. Financial bigotry makes the
damage from bigoted custody awards harder to reverse.
Secondly, since the courts are blind to what the children's mother is doing to them,
he will have to seek custody on other grounds. Saving his children from the psy-abuse is
the motivation. Any of the ways mentioned in this book of seeking custody can be the
means for his children's salvation. All of them take time, money and effort. But nobody
ever said being a parent was easy.
 \':'

KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 273

Preventing Child Sexual Abuse

Fathers need to understand that child sexual abuse is common and that it can be
devastating for a child and lead to a whole host of problems for the child that will last
into adult life. He needs to learn how to protect his children from it.

Child sexual abuse is a topic that has only recently come into public attention and
there is still a great amount of misinformation circulating. There are many aspects of it
that are extremely important to any divorced father who is attempting to ensure that his
children do not become victims of it.
Two aspects of child sexual abuse have changed in the last decade or two. First,
the public has come to realize that it is much more common than previously expected and
second, the public is beginning to realize the pervasive and dreadful consequences of
sexual abuse on the child, both initially and later during adult life.
How was it possible that a major social problem could remain unnoticed for so
long? Many reasons have been given for this, the most important of which is the myth that
child sexual abuse simply did not happen frequently. This myth wasmost prominently
enunciated in Sigmund Freud's "The Interpretation of Dreams" in 1899, when he
categorized his women patients' memories of sexual abuse as children as nothing more
than dreams or fantasies. Freud created a whole set of plausible-sounding explanations
under the label of "the Oedipus complex" and its female counterpart, "the Electra
complex", in which boys and girls are supposed to have latent sexual desires for the parent
of the opposite sex, and these desires were supposed to be responsible for false memories
of abuse. Freud was lionized as the founder of the profession of psychoanalysis, and as
such his reputation as the authority in this area served to imprison countless boys and
especially girls in the misery and degradation of child sexual abuse for most of the
twentieth century. Had Freud not made such a colossal blunder, or had he been regarded
as an ordinary researcher instead of as a fountainhead of inspiration, it might have been
possible for child sexual abuse to have been recognized for what it was decades ago and
prevention and treatment programs began. It was not until several female authors, in the
early seventies, began writing of their experiences that the false beliefs of Freudian
psychology were challenged by a force able to overthrow them, feminism. Within the next
two decades following these outcries, a large number of sociological studies were done
that determined the extent of child sexual abuse and its effect on children. Every parent
owes a debt-to these brave authors, who broke the tradition of silence on this topic to tell
their own autobiographies.
Each father needs to be aware of two aspects of these studies, where child sexual
abuse usually occurs and what are the consequences of it. The results of the first two
decades of studies are co1\ected in various places, including the comprehensive books by
Bagley and King-? and by Wurtele and Miller-Perrin-". First, the consequences of child

27 Bagley, Christopher and Kathleen King, "Child Sexual Abuse", TavistockIRoutledge, London and New
York, 1990.
Page 274 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes
...
··L

sexual abuse are devastating. There are some children who appear to be unharmed by it,
for reasons not yet known, but very many fall-victim toone of a wide variety of problems.
For example, most girls who are trapped in child prostitution or child pornography are
victims of earlier sexual abuse. Runaway children are often sexually abused children.
Mental problems, ranging from eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia to frigidity
to depression to hallucinations to masochism to suicidal behavior, all have a surprising
correlation with earlier sexual abuse. Boys who become sexual abusers themselves were
often abused as children. Drug use is correlated. Teenage pregnancy is correlated. Later
divorce is correlated. The correlation with major social problems is so high in many of
these that we might assume that the tremendous social costs of treating the problems of
our society are closely related to having generation after generation of sexually abused
children permeating society and the best way to solve them is to solve the child sexual
abuse problem.
There is another result of these sociological studies that divorced fathers need to
know about, the part relating where child sexual abuse usually happens, and who does it.
As found in all studies, very few biological fathers commit child sexual abuse against their
own children. The rate as measured in the prevalence studies is about 1 to 2% for female
. children and virtually zero for male children. This implies that the recent spate of divorce-
related charges of molestation against fathers by mothers is probably more for tactical
divorce reasons that because of any actual happenings. In also means that a father's house
is a very safe place for a child, related to child sexual abuse.
The exact opposite is true about the mother's house. Much abuse occurs there or
while the mother has custody, by people whom she has brought into contact with the
children. Stepfathers are an example. Stepfathers do not seem to have the instinctive
repugnance of sexual contact with stepchildren that fathers do with their natural children.
Boyfriends may be even worse, especially if they are transitory in the mother's house.
Friends of the stepfathers and boyfriends are also frequently implicated in child sexual
abuse, perhaps because they perceive that the stepfather does not have the same feelings
of protection that a natural father does. Of course, most stepfathers do not commit sexual
abuse, only about 17% according to one study quoted in Bagley and King. However,
stepfather sexual abuse usually involves more serious abuse than other situations, such as
where siblings or other relatives are involved. There does not seem to be any substantial
data yet on the prevalence of sexual abuse by a mother's boyfriends, but it might be
guessed that it is as bad as stepfather rates or even worse because of the more tenuous
connection between them and the children.
What does this mean for a divorced father? First, it is yet one more reason why he
should seek custody of his children. A father's protection is critical in the crazy world we
live in. It also means that, whether he has sole custody, joint custody, or visitation, he
should become aware of the signs of child sexual abuse and continually monitor his
children for it. There is no excuse for complacency, with the high rates of abuse and the
likelihood of serious consequences. Child sexual abuse occurs in all types of families, rich
and poor, across all ethnic groups, in suburbs and cities as well as rural areas. All kinds of

28 Wurtele, Sandy K. and Cindy L. Miller-Perrin, "Preventing Child Sexual Abuse", University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London, 1992.
 . . '.' ''If'-

KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 275

people do it, from the most respected individuals to homeless indigents. There are 'some .-
very clear signs of this type of abuse, and every divorced father should obtain enough
material, such as books or pamphlets, that tell him what suspicious signs there are. He
should become familiar with it so that it becomes a habit to check for it. And he should
become aware that his children most likely will not report it to him, either voluntarily or if
asked. A father has the responsibility for protecting his own children, and he cannot
simply claim that the courts have eliminated it by denying him custody. He got that
responsibility when the child was born and it does not go away until the child is old
enough to be beyond danger. Just because the court chooses to put his children in a more
perilous situation and works hard to prevent him from doing his protective role does not
mean that he can give up. It means that he must try. harder to do it. American divorce
justice is not the first phenomena in the world that has allowed prejudice and bias to put
children into danger and it will not be the last. A father's responsibility goes on, whether
he hasan easy time of providing protection or whether he has to risk his life to do it.
Fortunately, divorce court judges have to stop short of killing fathers, although the
deprivation of their children sometimes makes them feel like they have been. Where there
is life there is hope .
. One can also ask how is it possible that the judges in divorce court can continue to
put children at risk. The numbers of children who have to suffer because of their custody
awards are immense. Because of the diversity of American living arrangements, there are
no exact estimates of what harm these custody decisions do in the area of child sexual
abuse and its consequences, but some casual estimates can be used. One study came up
with the fact that a child is six times more likely to be sexually abused in a stepfather
family than in a father-headed family. To figure out actual child abuse figures resulting
from court custody decisions, one would have to have boyfriend abuse rate estimates,
maternal promiscuity figures, the likelihood that a father's absence makes it more likely
that other relatives commit sexual abuse, and a host of other numbers. However, to get an
idea of how many children are involved, we can use this factor six as a first estimate.
If a judge makes two custody decisions a day, two hundred days a year, for ten
years, and there are about two children in each family, then eight thousand children pass
under his review. If he gives 90% of the custody to the mothers, this means that 7,200
children will be in mother-headed households and 800 in father-headed households as a
result of his decisions. If the ratio of abuse in mother-headed households to abuse in
father-headed households is six, and number of children who are abused in a mother-
headed household is around 20%, then, out of the 7,200 children 1,440 will be abused and
out of the 800, about 26 will be for a total of 1466. If the judge had given 90% to fathers
and 10% to mothers, the corresponding number of abused children is 260 in the father-
headed households and 160 in the mother-headed households, for a total of 420. The
differences between these two counts are about a thousand more abused children in the
maternal preference alternative. Of course, at the time of the custody decisions, the judge
cannot tell which children are going to be the abused ones and which ones are going to be
free from it. The results are statistical. The pain is individual.
Even if the numbers are wrong by a factor of ten, and a judge will only condemn
an extra hundred children to sexual abuse by his prejudice for maternal custody, he still has
to think every day of his career of the agony that he is putting these children to. It would
Page 276 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

take acallousness far beyond that of most people to continue to do this. Yet it does go
on, in courts all over our nation., .. .
Undoubtedly, there are excuses that the judicial profession could give to explain
away the destroyed children that result from their decisions. They could explain that they
were not aware that mother-headed households led to worse problems in child sexual
abuse and the huge panoply of problems that result from it. Behaving like an ostrich may
relieve some judges of their guilt at what they have done, but it is certainly not a very
robust excuse. Another excuse is that they are only following up on the recommendation
of others, for example, custody evaluators or child psychologists. This excuse, the
Nuremberg excuse, ignores that they and they alone have the responsibility for authoring
court decisions. They have the responsibility to ensure that any court personnel be aware
of the prevalence of abuse and that they are free from maternal custody biases.
Another excuse is that fathers do not seek custody. After sixty or seventy years of
judges denying custody to men, it is true many fathers do not seek custody. First of all,
judicial prejudice has left. only a few examples of custodial fathers around, so that it is not
a common paradigm for fathers entering into divorce. An average father may not know
any fathers who have sole custody. Custodial fathers were common at the turn ofthe
century, nowadays they are rather rare, especially compared to custodial mothers. They
are rarely depicted in media. Fathers simply have too few examples to know to seek
custody.
Secondly, lawyers who expect to do business in the same divorce court year after
year soon learn that it is a waste of time seeking custody for their male clients. They do
not want to bother wasting time on a fruitless attempt, and especially to waste the time of
the judge who mayor may not award them the maximum allowed fees for their services.
Any judge who started seriously promoting paternal custody and working to overcome the
decades of prejudice would soon have his courtroom flooded with fathers wanting
custody. Blaming fathers is like blaming other victims of decades long prejudice for the
results of the prejudice and for adapting to it. Blaming the victims does not cut it. Judges
are the responsible people. They are given the responsibility by the state to promote the
best interests of the children that come before them. Causing a thousand or even a
hundred more cases of child sexual abuse during a ten year career on the family law bench
is not the way to fulfill the state's charter.
This means that a father needs to take a whole series of steps when he faces
divorce. He needs to become aware of what child sexual abuse is, and how to detect it.
He needs to evaluate if he could better protect his children if he had sole custody, and then
to seek it if he so chooses. He needs to make others aware of the child sexual abuse
problem with maternal custody preference, and make the legislature aware that judges are
simply ignoring their own overwhelming maternal custody bias and ask that the legislature
do something about it.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 ." Page 277

Running··Away'

For some men, the assault of the courthouse gang is too much to stand; they have
to get away and recover. Here's how to return when motivation and enthusiasm have
built back up.

Almost every father who has to endure a divorce thinks about running away,
leaving the whole mess, even his children, behind and starting anew someplace else. For
most men, this is escapist dreaming, as they either can't run or else have the strength to
continue the struggle and get through it. Sometimes it just feels good for a father to think
about how pleasant life could be to simply start again, out of the clutches of the legal
system and his ex-wife. .
For some men, however, the assault of the courthouse gang is too much to bear.
With a father's spouse turned into an enemy, his children stolen away, perhaps isolated
from him and alienated or suffering, perhaps his career ruined, his assets swallowed whole
by the lawyers involved, a constant diet of prejudice from everyone involved, a bad choice
oflawyer to represent him, suggestions or accusations of abuse or molestation being
peddled around, and the other ingredients of a typical American divorce, he may feel he
can no longer take it. In order to protect his sanity, or to recover from the devastation the
legal process creates, he feels he has to get away. Especially ifhis ex-wife is not a bad
mother, and he feels that there is little he can do immediately toward helping his children,
leaving temporarily may seem like a good alternative. No man should feel ashamed about
getting away from a situation of prejudice and exploitation, any more than a general who
retreats in order to regroup his forces should. Running away, with the intention of
returning when in a better position to deal with the divorce extortionists, is a tactical
move. Running away, when it is a question of simply not being able to take any more
stress and still function as a human being, is not something to be ashamed of. A father
who has to get away to maintain his own psychological stability has made the right choice.
A father can't help anyone if he lets himself become a ruined human being. A time away
from the firing line, a time for recovery and recuperation, is granted to every soldier, and
soldiers do not have to put up with what some fathers endure -- legal theft, prejudice, false
charges of violence or molestation, psychological assaults by a spiteful ex-wife, alienation
of contact with their children, and more.
When a father goes through a divorce, he often leaves his work in a shambles.
How can any man keep up his concentration on his work when he is under the assault of
the legal system? Many men, especially those whose businesses depend on their own
personal activity, lose the ambition to continue and slide into bankruptcy. Others get fired
because they cannot devote the same attention to their work as before, because of the
woes caused by the divorce. This often means a man has no ability to pay the exactions
levied on him by the court, the legal costs, the support payments, the mortgage payments,
the health care payments, the car payments, the child care payments, the transportation
payments, the dental bills, the insurance payments and anything else the court can think
up. Ifhe doesn't pay, whether or not he runs away, he is put into a special category for
Page 278 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

abuse, not just in the courtroom, but in newspapers, magazines, television and radio,
political forums, women's symposia, and anywhere else conversation occurs. He is now a
"deadbeat dad". Besides the degradation that he endured in the court and other legal
messhalls, he now has the psychological burden of hearing his category of people attacked
allover by individuals who have never been through what he has and who have no
appreciation of why some men cannot continue to be workslaves for their wives. This
denunciation is a current media fad topic, and it adds to the difficulty that a well-
intentioned father has in returning to the fray after he has had a time to recover. Divorce
for many men is a process of self-esteem destruction, when the person you depended on
for emotional support turns on you, and when your favorite people, your children, are
taken away from you. The work abilities that you had may have been savaged by the
process. Any pride you had in what you had built up by years of work, a nice house or a
savings account for example, is destroyed by legal greed. What is left to maintain a man's
self-esteem? Add to this process the battering that "deadbeat dads" receivein the press
and elsewhere, and it is no wonder that many simply never return.
Any man who became a runaway "deadbeat dad" for the reasons cited here does
not deserve to think of himself poorly. He did what may have been the most practical way
of maintaining his sanity and of recuperating from the divorce. He needs to gauge when
his best time of returning is, and how he should attempt to do it. Stonewall Jackson never
felt bad about cutting his losses and pulling out of a battle, and neither sh~uld any father
who splits.
There are many ways to run away, and many ways to return. Some men totally
disappear, foregoing any contact with their children. Some go to foreign countries or
distant states, start their lives over, and sometimes start new marriages and families.
Others maintain contact with their children, and even exercise visitation. Either way, their
option to return is open, unless their ex has trumped up criminal or contempt charges to
top off the case against him.
One way to return is simply to show up in good shape for solving whatever
problems were left over. Courts do not like to let cases drag on forever, and they have
come up with the concept of default to cover situations with missing participants. If a
man is not around on his day in court, his ex-wife gets whatever she asks for, within limits.
Usually this means she gets rights to use, ifnot to keep, his share of their property, full
physical and possibly legal custody, an order for zero or very minimal visitation, and an
order for maximal levels of support. These levels can be based on any outlandish
assessment of the husband's ability to earn money, as he is not there to defend himself If
he was a full-time wage-earner with years of employment stability, there is not much
leeway for arguing about his income, but ifhe was a part-time employee at best, a full-
time equivalent salary can be used. If he was self-employed, the best year he ever had for
income can be used as the standard for setting support levels. Deductions for expenses
can be overlooked. Anything goes when there is no defense.
Then, when a father returns, he finds himself faced with a monumental support
arrearage that builds up both in amount and interest for every month he stays away. Such
debts are almost never removable. The court will not go back and open up an assessment
unless he can show there was deliberate fraud and even then he may be blamed for not
KiDDS Notes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 279

dealing with it promptly. Courts do not understand stress breakdown. Excuses about his
mental health or anything else will not carry much weight.
Dealing with such a support arrearage bill requires two steps. It might be
negotiated downward with the ex-wife's lawyer, who would often be happy to get a
smaller pile of money immediately rather than the larger amount dribbled in over many
years. Then the lawyer can get his legal fees paid. If it can't be negotiated downward,
some plan to pay it off needs to be done. If the husband has any rights to property, they
might be traded away. Otherwise, he needs a livable plan.
If he has a garnishable wage in his new location, he may find himself with a
garnishment order for current support or past support as soon as his ex-wife learns of his
employment, which she can do via Social Security, a local DA's office, or in other ways.
There is little that he can do to avoid this, other that to work in a non-garnishable way,
and these ways are gradually disappearing. Facing the music is almost the only way left to
go, other than to remain on the lam for the rest of his life, which means not being a father
for his children. Some men have the additional problem that there is a stepfather now in
his children's lives, and they have been gradually forgetting their father during the time he
was away. Returning to reenter their life is a difficult choice, especially if his children.
seem to be doing well in the stepfamily. Being away, he has less chance to monitor his
children's welfare, with only some secondary sources being available, such as old friends in
the neighborhood. He may see that his ex-wife has won it all, using the favoritism in the
court to drive him completely out of his children's life. In such a situation, he has to
decide when to return and recontact them, and how to. If they have been taught to
despise him, it may be a futile hope to think that he can reverse it.
Divorce prejudice sometimes leaves a father with no options, no hope, no chances
and no possibilities except to stay among the missing. Curing the problem of divorce
prejudice would probably be the best means of curing the problem of missing fathers. If a
state ever wanted to restore children to their fathers, it might create an amnesty program
for support nonpayers. But this would hardly satisfy some of the emotions involved in our
current divorce system, such as hostility and greed. So children and fathers will continue
to suffer.
Page 280 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDS Notes
K.iriDS Notes v~JnDate:May29, 1994' Page 281

ResumlnqVlsitation or Custody

A father who comes back into his children's life after an extended period away can
expect to have to spend a long time and a lot of effort rebuilding trust between himself
and his children.

Maybe you've been a bad dad, and haven't visited your children for months or
years for some personal reason or another. Maybe you've had a bad divorce and your ex
somehow managed to keep you from visiting your children for a long time. Maybe you've
had a bad ex-wife, and she kidnapped your children and eluded the law forces for a while.
Something has changed and you are now willing and able to resume contact with your
children. In the extreme, your wife might have become ill, died or disappeared, and you
now have custody, going from no contact to full custody overnight!
Children who have lost contact with an absent father lose their trust in him.
Young children may be afraid ofhim and older ones resentful of how he avoided them.
They may not believe that their mother was responsible for the break in contact, if she
was. She could have told them that their father didn't want to be around them or that he
was dead. Any story might have been given to them, as children, especially little children,
are not in a position to check facts or even to realize that an adult can be misleading them.
They probably love their mother, and telling them that She lied to them can't do any good.
They may have relied on her alone for a long time. To tell them she lied to them will
undermine her other teaching, leaving them much worse off than before. They won't
know what to believe. You need to come up with a different explanation, or just sidestep
the question, saying that they will be told when they are older, but for now they just need
to trust dad. It almost never pays to malign the other parent to a child. If something has
to be explained that casts a bad light on them, or if commenting is unavoidable (as if you
have to explain why mom disappeared without telling them), you need to make it as mild
and acceptable as possible. For a child to know that he or she is the son or daughter of an
irresponsible person, or of an insensitive person, or of a person with some other major
character problem does not help the child's self-esteem. It can only undermine it, and
perhaps set up the child to imitate that trait in the future.
Trust, especially in young children, is built up by actions, not words. After being
away, you need to be even more reliable and dependable than a normal parent would be.
You have to live up to what you say, as the child or children may be watching to see if you
can be depended on to tell the truth. Children are in the process of learning, growing and
changing and they are usually ready to accept that adults can do the same. If your absence
was voluntary, you can explain your actions by admitting that you have made some
mistakes in the past, but have learned from them and are now back for good. If you had
to be away, but did not take the time to maintain contact by telephone or letter, you can
interpret that as a mistake as well. The children may not ask you why you did the things
you did, because they are afraid to hear the answer. They might very likely have absorbed
your faults as theirs, and believe that you did not maintain contact because you did not like
them or because something was the matter with them. Even more important than
Page 282 KiDDS Notes .
'/" .

maintaining your own image is maintaining their own self-image. Never let them think
that they are the problem, as they will have to live out their entire lives with that feeling of
inferiority embedded deep in their minds. .
Reinterpreting your and your ex-wife's actions to your children as
misunderstandings rather than acts of hatred and revenge can help you to reestablish your
relationship with your children while helping to explain why their mother wanted to keep
her ex-husband away from visitation, if that was the problem. A runaway mother is not as
easy to explain, but the less you can do to blame her the better. Ifthere is a choice
between blaming her and having the children blame themselves, the former has to be it.
Often you don't have to explain her action in detail, but just say that some emergency must
have come up that drew her away, or that she had some mental problem that had to be
dealt with. Unfortunately, your statements will be tested by your children's peers who will
inevitably inquire from your children about what happened to their mother. They need to
have an explanation that does not subject them to more teasing than absolutely necessary.
Try to anticipate how your children will have to respond before deciding what to tell them.
Overcoming the resentment of a teenager who has not had contact with you for a
long time may not be possible. If your behavior has hurt him (or her), or ifhe watched his
mother bearing up under a burden that your absence made worse, you can not expect that
years of anger at your absence can be erased by anything short of years of trust-building.
Some teenagers can be living with a void in their lives that you can immediately step into
and fill, but others have dealt with their feelings in a way that has turned you into the
principal villain in their lives. A lot depends on what kind of parent you were before the
breakup or loss of contact occurred. If you were warm, loving and kind, there may be a
place for you when you return. If you were the kind of parent who was a good as absent
before the breakup, you have no memories to call on. Your job is much harder and will
take much more work.
Communicating with your children after your absence is the most important action
you can take to reestablish your trust. This does not mean talking to them and making up
reasons. It means listening to them as well. There is no substitute for establishing two-
way communications with your children, even if it means that you have to learn how to do
it. You need to be able to understand where they have gotten to in their lives away from
you. Listening is the first step toward building trust. Being willing to absorb their anger
or fear about you is an important step. Trying to out-argue a child is a recipe for never
establishing a relationship. Learn from any outbursts they might have.
As with any difficult psychological task, reestablishing contact with children after a
long absence can be aided by professional help, advice of friends, or self-education. It is
not something simple, that can be solved by hoping or wishing. Explaining to the children
that this is the way life is and that they should get used to you is probably useless.
Reestablishing trust takes a long period of dedication. But there is nothing else
more important that your own children, whether or not you have been around for them or
have been kept away or stayed away. Keep at it until you succeed.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 283 .

Getting Custody
Page 284.. Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
'.,., .
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 285

Evaluator Bias

In Californiaand many other states, custody decisions are effectively made not by
judges but by custody evaluators. This note describes the prevalent bias they have
and how to deal with it.

Part of the custody determination process involves a review of the family situation
by a professional evaluator or a family court services mediator, as they are called in
California, and the development of a recommendation bvelopment of a recommendation by that person a
should be awarded. There are typically two stages: the temporary orders, which are
usually set up by a mediator based on very superficial interviews with the two parents; and
the permanent orders, which may be done several ways, typically involving more extensive
data collection and evaluation. Since judges almost always follow the recommendation of
these professionals, it is a very severe problem when a father is faced by prejudice in
evaluation or mediation. It is not easy to overcome such biases. This section describes
some ways to attack the problem.
How can you determine if your evaluator is biased? It is safest to assume that he
or she is, rather than to assume that everything will come out fairly and then find at the
end that custody has been taken away from you and given to a less fit parent. Anecdotal
information indicates that about half of these professionals are strongly biased in favor of
maternal custody and paternal (or zero) visitation, some of the others favor that choice to
a lesser degree, the rest are fair - maybe one in a few hundred favors males.
Some prejudiced professionals are rather blatant about their preferences and others
keep it covered up. Yet there are clues. One is background: recent college graduates
most likely did their studies in a college or university where what is now called "politically
correct" studies were taught and where that sort of thinking was the predominant fad on
campus. This teaching leaves its listeners with the ideas that men have selfishly dominated
and deprived women for centuries, that it is a natural behavior for men, and that only
strong measures can prevent it. The more gullible students may leave college with the
mission in life to right these wrongs. That may mean getting individual men back for their
gender's supposed transgressions. Specifically it means that you, the children's father, are
unfit to be a human being, much less take care of your offspring.
The other educational bias occurred with slightly older female students who
attended college during the heyday of feminism in the late 70's. They heard much the
same story about men, but it was not a foregone conclusion that they would follow this
brand of ideology. Educational biases can be sometimes detected by engaging the
evaluator in some pleasant discussion about her education. An evaluator who was a
women's studies major or who wrote a thesis on a feminist topic is quite likely to be
biased.
Another way to monitor for bias is to watch the evaluator's reactions in dealing
with you. If you get considerably less interview time than your ex-wife, watch out. If you
have joint interviews and the evaluator directs most questions to your ex, watch out. If
she continually focuses her attention on your ex, watch out. If her attitude in questioning
Page286 .' · Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

is different for you, in other words, does he or she seem to be suspicious of everything you
say, watch out. In general, closely monitor the behavior of the evaluator during any face-
to-face dealings.
Even before you meet the evaluator, you can start inquiries as soon as you know
who is going to be assigned to do your evaluation. If you have a local lawyer, he should
know the predilections of the evaluators. Other men who have been through the system
may provide you with an even better view of each evaluators foibles and foolishness. A
men's rights group that has collected data on them would be invaluable here.
What can you do when faced with a less-fair evaluator? In California, a person
being evaluated can sometimes insist on a change of evaluators and make it stick. Keep
data, get emotional but stay controlled, persevere. Don't count on getting a third chance
with yet another evaluator, however.
Know the law. If you are permitted certain rights, let the evaluator know you are
aware of them. Don't make threats, but simply ask why you are being denied your rights.
Keep asking until you get Ii satisfactory answer. You can learn the law by going to a law
library. Americans for Legal Reform, [HALT, Inc.], publishes an inexpensive guidebook
to legal research-? .
Accusing the evaluator of bias probably won't work. Instead, work at getting
through to her or him on an emotional level. Communicate how you feel about being
.deprived of your children. Anger is a negative. Save it for outside. Warm compassion
for your children does not need to be hidden.
Lastly, to help your children, seek support. Join or start a men's rights group.
Talk to other fathers about their experiences with evaluators. Write a joint letter to the
evaluator's supervisor if you have problems dealing with him or her that are common to
other men. Complain to the head of the evaluation system, his or her supervisor in county
government or the presiding judge who is in charge of the whole set of court-related
employees. Contact your state representatives. Remember that evaluators work for the
state, and state employees jump when the State Assembly or Senate contacts them. Write
a letter to your Congressman asking for an investigation if you suspect bias is present.
Write a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. If you and your group have the guts,
picket the Court house after you call the local press.
One last point about dealing with prejudice: don't let it ruin your psyche. Enjoy
yourself; you'll get more accomplished that way. Dealing with prejudice is a draining
experience, and you need to relieve your mind frequently. Have a good time. Do things
you like. Play with your kids. Don't dwell on your losses, but just keep looking forward
to the time when you will have overcome prejudice and bias and have your children.

29 HALT, Inc., "Using a Law Library", Americans for Legal Reform, Washington, DC, 1988.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29. 1994 Page 287

Kids for Sale

Paying your ex-wife to let you have custody is one way of solving your custody
problem. You have to do it a certain way to make it legal, and to do a lot of work
figuring out how to make the deal watertight.

Because that's the way things are done, your ex-wife is assured of getting custody
in the initial hearing for your divorce in almost all circumstances and in almost all courts.
It's a freebie for her because of her sex. She had the kids so she keeps them.
But maybe she doesn't particularly want them, or doesn't want them full time.
What she does want is money. If she gets the kids, she gets money for child support,
maybe money for spousal support because she is too burdened for work, maybe money for
child care to give her some time off for education, education costs as well, medical
expenses for her and the kids, a rent or mortgage subsidy, or whatever else comes to .
mind. Judges know that rearing kids requires money and they usually make sure that their
orders indicate that. They may not personally like having kids around, but they sure aren't
going to be accused of being hard on children. Certainly not when someone else's cash is
at stake. The general rule in court is that it is better to be too generous at the outset than
too stingy and get accused of causing hardship to the kids. No judge wants to think of
himself as having done that or to have others think of him as not having done enough for a
mother's children. The result of this is that your ex can't give up the kids or she loses what
she really wants, large chunks of money .
.If money is what she wants and the children are what she gets for free, you have
the option to do a trade. In the legal business, this is called making a stipulation. You
agree she is to get some large amount of spousal support, or some large amount of cash
settlement, or half the proceeds of selling the family business you built up, or something
else substantial. She agrees you are to get sole physical custody or to share joint custody
at some percentage of contact time. The lawyers write up the stipulation, you both sign it,
the judge approves it and it becomes final. Both of you walk off feeling that you have
solved your most pressing problem.
Probably it would bother you to buy your children back. It shouldn't. It's the
modern way of doing business. Just as you have to make a campaign contribution to a
politician to get a tax loophole or a permit, you have to spend money to get what you
want in a divorce, namely, the children. Life is not fair or honest or equitable or just. At
least it's not in America. We gave up the pretense of justice and fairness a couple of
decades ago, but they drifted out so slowly that not everybody noticed they had gone.
There's no use wishing that the old times could come back. It's time to get with the
modem situation and buy your kids.
What really matters is getting the stipulation correct. You don't want to be the
victim of a situation where both of you agree to something, then she breaks her part, and
you can't do anything about it. In the modern world of no integrity, everyone has to spend
a lot of time writing up anything they agree to because as soon as it's done, the other side
Page288" Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
' .."" '1'"'"

is going to be trying to figure out how to get out of having to do their part without losing
what they gained.
In making "custody for money" swaps, you need to know about a legality called
"change of circumstances". This means that if something happens in a child's life, for
example, he changes schools, houses, or anything else except his clothes, the two parties
can come back into court and re-argue custody. Suppose you agree to a hefty spousal
support package in return for joint custody. You are busy paying it when your child goes
from nursery school to kindergarten. "Change of circumstances!" Mom files for a review
of custody. The custody evaluator recommends and the judge decides, as you feared, that
joint custody is no longer in the child's best interests. Having to go back and forth
between houses so much now that he is in school and has to be concentrating on learning
will be too much strain. In short, any change of circumstances in an excuse for the
courthouse gang to make up some story to justify taking your child away from you.
Do you think you get out of the spousal payments if this happens?
If you answered "yes," you haven't been paying attention. There is no justice or
fairness in divorce court. If you contest the continued payment of the exorbitant spousal
you agreed to in order to get joint custody, the judge may simply look at your stipulation
and see that you agreed to the spousal amount, and made no conditions upon which it
would be terminated. Too bad for you! Now your ex has the child most of the time and
the money too. In fact, even more money because child support probably got raised when
you started having less contact time.
The lesson is simple. Never agree to any stipulation without figuring out every
conceivable angle for cheating and every conceivable event that could go wrong, and
taking pains to write into your stipulation rock-solid arrangements that correct any
weaseling that the court or your ex may think of. If you do this and the stipulation states
that the spousal goes down if custody changes, your ex is less likely to break the custody
agreement. It is possible that she and her lawyer could argue to the court that spousal
support amounts conditioned on the presence or absence of children is really a child
support deal, and the court should modify it accordingly. However, such complicated
technical arguments have little place in divorce court. Divorce courts typically have very
simple arguments only. Make your stipulation simple and tight.
Still bothered by the sleaziness of having to pay to be with your own children? Do
two things: get the kids and do your best rearing them; spend some time protesting with
other ripped-off fathers. Someday, somehow, somewhere, some justice has to be found.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 289

Joint or Sale?

Many people advocate joint custody. There are advantages. and also
disadvantages. Here are some guidelines for making the decision. both at the initial
hearing and later. Don't be afraid to try for sole custody after you have proved
yourself.

When. you bought your house with your wife, you put it in joint ownership, didn't
you? Now that you're getting divorced, why not put the kids in joint ownership?
At the outset of the divorce, take it if you can get it. If you fight your ex for
custody, you are likely to lose because you made a stupid mistake. You were. born wrong.
You were a male. Males don't gettheir kids unless their ex-wife is a neo-Nazi skinhead or
worse, or unless you find one of those rarest orchids of the courtroom, an unbiased judge
who isn't burned out yet. Even if you grew up with the judge you were assigned to and
know him to be as fair as a Spring breeze, don't assume that he is going to be unbiased in
custody decisions. To treat men fairly, he has to stand up in the face of everybody else in
the system who all think you are evil incarnate and will probably eat the kids once you get
them. Unbiased judges bum out quickly. It is safer and likelier to be successful to forget
sole custody at first. Take the halfloaf and work on getting the rest later. Hang in there,
and maybe your ex will run off to. Rio with her plumber.
Custody decisions are made at least twice by the court in all cases, although they
usually are the same. First there are temporary orders, which settle custody for the period
from the first hearing to the final decision after trial. Then there are permanent orders,
which extend until the children reach adulthood. The two names are really misnomers, as
the temporary orders have a tendency to be turned into permanent, and you can go back
and change either of them if you can think of a good reason.
A better way to think of the two court decisions is as the arraignment, when the
court gets to meet you, size you up, and take away most of what you worked hard to
earn, and the sentencing, where they mop up what's left. The first one is the one that
counts. At the first one, if you are offered joint custody, take it. Jfyou aren't offered it,
demand to know why. Make the evaluator explain why you aren't as good a parent as
your ex-wife, which puts the burden of proof on the evaluator to come up with something
you can challenge.
If you are offered joint custody, make sure you are getting joint physical custody,
which means your children spend significant time with you, as opposed to joint legal
custody, which means almost nothing. With joint legal, you can ask the schools to send
you a copy of your child's report card, and perhaps there are a few more privileges oflike
importance. Don't waste much time on this. Almost all parents get joint legal. The ball
game is about getting primary or sole physical custody. The person who gets physical
custody has almost all the responsibility and authority for rearing the children.
Tactics dictate that you should go for joint custody if it makes sense from a
logistics point of view. It is harder for an evaluator, no matter how much she dislikes you, .
to claim that you are a bad parent and should not be allowed joint custody on some nearly
Page 290 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDS Notes i,

equal basis with your ex-wife. Your lawyer or you, if you are in pro per, should know
that if the evaluator wants to give sole or primary custody to your ex, she can be cross-
examined in court, and you can layout on the permanent public record her inanities for all
to read. The evaluator will, if questioned properly, have to explain what is good about
your ex and what is bad about you, how she figured out the brilliant deduction that you
aren't worth allowing joint custody to, what her qualifications are, how thoroughly she
checked sources to find out the truth, and so on. With good planning, you should be able
to show that such a recommendation is incompetent. Evaluators know that they can be
subjected to being exposed for their biases and avoid situations where it can happen. If
your lawyer is more of a vegetable than a gladiator, the evaluator knows she can do what
she wants to. You know what you have to do: hire a gladiator or become one yourself
Sometimes a balanced joint custody can be ruled out on the basis of practicality. If
you have schoolage children, and your ex and you live in different and distant towns, you
can't work out an equal-sharing joint custody arrangement. Having them in school daily .
prevents this. This means that when you get thrown out of the family home, move
somewhere nearby. There are some side benefits to this location. It won't hurt your case
to know that your ex has a different car parked in her driveway every Saturday night, or to
find your young children wandering around unattended, unhygenic or uncared for. It
might help you make up your mind about doing custody.
Sometimes work or other requirements force you to live a long distance from your
ex-wife. With younger, pre-school children, you can still do joint custody with a little
extra work. Alternate weeks, or alternate months. This gives you time to prepare for the
next custody arrangement.
With a joint custody arrangement, do not voluntarily settle for less than 50%
unless there is simply no physical way you can do it. Your temporary convenience may
cost you many times what you save financially, and may doom your children to a lesser life
than if you sacrificed a little more to be with them the most time that you could possibly
arrange. If you are down to one third or less time, at the next custody decision the court
can use the old hatchet called "stability" on you. This means that the evaluator now has
an excuse to deny you custody. She goes on like this, "The children are used to being
with their mother, and stability is very important to children who have just been through a
divorce." It's got nothing to do with reality, but it is an excuse that plays well. Don't set
yourself up for it by choosing a lesser fraction of custody time so you will have a more
convenient work schedule or some other option. It's a loser's choice.
You might also find out something financially unpleasant. Your state may figure
out child support on the basis of what fraction of time each parent has with the children.
It's often done by counting hours by some clever rules. You may find yourself with some
calculated fraction of hours per weeki like 25%, even though you have 50% of the contact
time. In that case, you may be ordered to pay full child support. For a period of time,
California had a rule that a parent wi~h less than 30% of custody time paid full child
support. Father after father came out of court with 29.5%. Learn how evaluators count
hours and push up your numbers. I
Does your ex make arrangements for day care and do the drop off and pickup?
Then it's all her time, even though yoh split the costs. Money spent on child care has
nothing to do with how the evaluator counts hours. Don't give the opposition a chance to
 .:... ' -,r -: ~";" '-
Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 291

do this to you. Go for equal sharing of transportation. Explain that you want to make
sure your ex-wife has enough time for her own personal arrangements after the divorce.
Keep a straight face.
Before you go through an episode or two of divorce court, you may not believe
tacky, slanted rules like this could exist. Unfortunately, they do; this is a standard tactic
used to reduce fathers' time. State to the evaluator that you think it's important to interact
with the teachers at your child's school or daycare center. She may be hard pressed to
come up with a reason why you shouldn't be allowed this. In fact, it is definitely and
crucially important for a parent to have this interaction, but it is also important that you
not get a financial karate chop to the back of the neck when you are trying to build up
your case for custody. Struggling with finances makes it harder for you to be the excellent
parent you want to be. You ex's lawyer knows that.
With a 50% sharing arrangement, you have a chance to see just how good a single
parent your ex is. It may be that she does a fine job, despite your worries. You can stay
with joint custody all through the children's minority, or until such time as one of you has
to make a career change or move away.
One advantage of joint custody that is not appreciated is that it gives you a chance
to monitor your children's physical condition. A father who is reduced to alternate
weekends or less does not get much chance to notice bruises that the mother or her friends
or relatives may be inflicting on the child. Women who are inhibited from getting violent
with their husbands may not be so inhibited when it comes to a small child, especially one
who is too small to appreciate what is happening and to know how to deal with it.
Women who have been violent at all with their husbands probably have it in them to be
violent with a child, once the husband is no longer around to serve as a victim. If your ex-
wife has a violent temper, it is imperative that you seek joint custody and that you
continuously monitor your children. It does not take many assaults to completely
undermine a child's self-esteem. It needs to be stopped immediately.
Even if your ex-spouse is calm and self-controlled, you need to know how to
evaluate how she affects the children in order to know if you want to allow joint custody
to continue. Of course, it may not be obvious. Being a single parent does not just mean
putting food on the table and buying clothes. It means building a whole human being, and
training him or her to go out into the world with self-respect and confidence. You ex may
be fine at sewing patches on your child's clothes, but is she the kind of person you would
want your child to grow up and imitate? Ask these simple questions. "If my children
turned out to be like my ex-wife, would I be proud of them?" "Would I feel that I have
done everything I could to help them become the best they could be?" If you feel strongly
that your ex is simply not a good enough role model and that your children deserve better
than that, then you need to evaluate how to give it to them. There is usually only one
answer to this. It means you must give them better and be their full-time, main-line role
model and parent. Nobody will do that for your children but you. If you feel that you are
needed and are ready to take on the whole job, then, you have just made the decision to
seek sole custody. It's time to pin on your badge, strap on your guns, and step out into
the noonday sun. All the bad guys are out there waiting for you.
I.
KiDDSNotes .Vernon Date: May 29, 1994 Page 293

Long-term Pressure

To gain custody, it is useful to determine a strategy for keeping up the pressure on

your ex-spouse to allow the children to be in your custody for their own best interests,
and for her interests as well. There are many options available to most fathers.

Custody changes do not usually happen fast. To change from being a visitation
parent to a custodial parent might take years. Plan on simply keeping up the pressure,
staying available, never giving up, never going away until you have achieved what you
know to be best for your children.
The first action to take is to map out a strategy. You already have a goal: help
your children achieve everything in life they are capable of by playing the largest role in
their life that you can: being their custodial parent. You have already thought out how
you would help them fulfill their capabilities if you were the custodial parent. You would
be available to the children, you would be involved in their lives more than your ex
chooses to, you would be a better example to them, and so on. This you have already
thought through, and you understand your goal and what it would be like to have custody.
The strategy is a plan for reaching that goal.
The first part of developing a strategy is to understand the opposition and the
obstacles. The opposition is typically your wife, although in some cases it is your mother-
in-law or both grandparents or some other person who is pulling the strings in the custody
dispute. You need to understand what is the problem with you taking custody. Is it
vindictiveness? Does you wife simply hates your guts; is she out to keep you from having
whatever it is you want? Is she money-oriented; does she want to keep the children so
that she has all the financial advantages that flow from that? Is she paranoiac, believing
that you have evil intentions toward the children? Is your mother-in-law the one who
matters, and is she simply trapped in a mothering mode and wants another generation of
children to do her thing with? Is it your father-in-law, who didn't want his daughter to
marry you in the first place and is now going to teach you a lesson? You need to think
and think and think until you see the big picture. Talk to people who knew the both of
you. Talk to other divorced fathers who might provide another insight. Talk to any
professionals who could advise you. Talk to your ex: if she is communicative, you might
simply ask her, in the most pleasant way you can manage, what is her problem with you?
Be explicit. It might even help her realize that you are sincere in your desire to help the
children. Be adamant. If she tells you the best thing you can do is to go away forever,
simply record that. After a while she may be willing to let you have the children to get
you out of her life.
Not everyone understands their own motivations. It may be that your wife is
refusing you custody simply as a reaction to the hassles of the divorce or to the financial
quarreling that it involves. When she is asked to think about it, she may find she believes
you are an excellent father. In order to make a strategy, you must form a clear idea of
why it is that she is refusing your request. It might be that your ex simply cannot bear the
idea of being away from the children, and her denial of custody to you has nothing to do
Page 294 Version Date:
, ..
May
.
-','
29, 1994.
:..'., ~
,~
-.,' "
KiDDSNotes

with your ability to be a full-time father to them. She may simply have all her pride and
self-esteem wrapped up in being a mother: Take as
much timeas you need to figure this
out, getting all the information you can. When you have resolved what you think the
opposition's reasons are, check them out. Ask your ex. Ask a mutual friend. Have a
mutual friend ask her. If you have a good relation with an in-law, ask him or her. The
better you understand the other side's reasons, the better you can deal with them.
Next you need to understand the obstacles. Is the custody evaluator or judge that
you were involved with a real nut about giving men custody? Or do you feel that they can
be induced to give a reasonable decision? This is also an important fact, because you have
two ways to go to achieve custody. You can turn around the opposition, and have your
wife simply grant you primary custody or joint custody. Perhaps she will seize the
opportunity to simply disappear, once she realizes that the children will probably be better
off with you. Alternatively, you can overturn the custody decision in court. This means
that you will be concentrating on building up your case there insteadofwearing down
your ex's opposition. These different strategies take different approaches.
It may be that you start with one strategy and then switch. If you find, after
months, that your wife's real reason for insisting on having full custody herself is that her
new boyfriend is demanding it, you may want to go back to the courtroom contest. Or it
may be that the judge that slam-dunked you gets transferred to another court, or put in
jail. Perhaps the new judge is very considerate and totally non-sexist. Then you need to
get back into court.
When you have determined that your strategy is to deal with your wife's refusal,
rather than going head-to-head one more time in court, then you develop tactics. You
need to undermine her beliefs, if they are the root of the refusal. She believes that you
cannot take care of the children competently. You need to show her you can. Keep
requesting opportunities for that. Take care of other people's children. Do activities
together with other youngsters. Ask for longer and longer vacations withthe children.
Talk to her about how you do visitation. Ask her why she believes what she does about
your inability with children. Perhaps having an involved girlfriend will break the barriers,
if your ex-wife is an out-and-out sexist about maternal versus paternal care. You need to
ease your ex into accepting that you are fully qualified to care for the children as well as
she can. Maybe she wants things done a certain way. Do it, or ask her to explain why in
order to help her understand that her own methods of child care are arbitrary and
unnecessary.
Perhaps her opposition revolves around some personal habits. She is as neat as a
pin, and you keep a messy house. You can hire a maid. You can introduce her to some
children who are growing up perfectly content and well-adjusted in a messier house than
yours. The point is to figure out the opposition's viewpoint and then how to change it.
Slow, steady, long-term pressure against an unreasonable refusal may do the job. If your
wife is not particularly rational, it would be no use to reason with her that her fixed
opinions, say about messiness, are irrelevant to the children's welfare. It is better to simply
solve the problem and remove it from her consideration. You need to understand the
opposition to overcome it.
Other tactics may work even better. Is your wife sensitive to others' emotions?
Would it help you to explain to her how terrible you feel without more access to your
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 295

children? If she appreciates how much you are hurting to not have them, and she still has
some positive feelings toward you, you may succeed with this route. In short, you need to
figure out what might change her attitude or opinion, and use it, week after week, until her
opposition diminishes enough for her to grant you more custody.
If your wife is in it for the money, as very many women seem to be, appealing to
her reasonableness may be a dumb joke. Can you buy her out, i.e., pay her enough
money, either in spousal or in a lump sum settlement, to allow her to grant you the
children. Can you get her to go to full-time school while you take over custody? Explore
your options.
Another approach with money-dominated mothers is to undermine her financial
basis. If she is dependent on more than child support to live a comfortable life, and you
have some options in affecting her other source of income, think about using it. Does she
have a phony disability claim that allows her to stay at home full time with the children,
a
which she then uses as custody argument? Perhaps having a private investigator follow
her around to her aerobics class and tape her activity would serve as a lever. Does she
rent out part of your home to get extra money? Perhaps you could have the house sold by
one means or another. Is she living on the generosity of a well-off boyfriend? Perhaps he
would be distracted by a more attractive acquaintance you know. Are her parents
contributing to her state ofluxury, and could they be informed about something that might
change their willingness to continue to dole our money? In short, can you determine the
sources of income she has, and do something about them if they are illegal, based on false
pretenses, exploiting someone else besides you, taking advantage of something you have
influence over, or anything else other than an honest job? It may seem low to do so, but
what could be lower than denying the best parent custody and wrecking little children's
future lives?
Part of a strategy is defining the steps involved. Some changes are easier than
others, and it is almost always true that a small change is easier than a large one. Small
changes in the custody area can often be done by a custody evaluator without much
involvement by the court, which is fine if the evaluator is reasonable and the judge
bigoted. Changes such as schedule adjustments often fall in this area. Defining ambiguous
areas of your custody order or plan may also be in this area. Move from one stage to
another, in the general direction of sole custody. The first steps might be moving to more
and more contact time, and then using that time to establish with a mediator that you are
doing an excellent job.
One of the more difficult situations is where the father, because of bad advice or
incompetent defense, is stuck with no schedule of visitation, just "reasonable visitation. "
Such a prescription is a license for the custodial parent to define what is reasonable in her
own terms. This could be virtually nothing. When a father has such a visitation order, his
ex has quite a bit of power over him as she is able to terminate his visitation, insist on a
change of schedule, or any other request. If she gets angry because she feels he is not
paying enough child support, or owes some, she can turn off visitation. If she gets jealous
because she feels the father's life is better in some way than her own, she can retaliate by
depriving him of something very important. If she is offended by her son or daughter
becoming more and more attached to his or her father, she can put a damper on the
contact. In other words, any excuse to deprive her child or children of contact with their
Page 296 .: Version Date: May 29. 19.~4 KiDDS Notes.
" .•• - : .•• ~ .~; ••.•• ~ ••..•
: ,<.

father is good enough. In this situation, a father's only recourse, and he should take care.,
of it at the first sign of trouble, is to go back tocourt orto the custody evaluator and .~, .., .'
define a schedule. ..' .
The next step might be to add visitation time. Going from one weekend a month
to two or to four is fine. Adding all holidays in another, although that often is impossible
because of the desire of the evaluator to give both parents holiday contact. Three day
weekends are usually not so tightly restricted, however. Adding most or all of the summer
is a step. Adding weekday overnights is another. Then the stage is set for joint custody,
gradually moving up to 50% time. Taking over partial responsibility for school or daycare
delivery is a step. Taking over full responsibility for these is a big step. Being in charge of
grandparent contact is a step. Getting a child in a preferred school is a possible step.
Taking care of medical appointments is another one. With each of these, a father could
volunteer for all of these contact opportunities, and if denied, could protest about it until
half of them were granted. .
The step from joint to sole is usually a big one, and might have to wait until some
change occurs in one of the parent's lives, or a child to reach the age where he or she
could have some say in where they live. However, it is possible to come up with a plan
for pushing contact time above 50%, perhaps to 50% plus time for an extended vacation
or camp time in the summer, or to 50% non-school time plus school arrangements, or to
50% time plus extra holidays. Any improvement is better than none, as it establishes a
father's abilities and interests in taking full custody.
Some of these steps takes planning outside the evaluator's office. It might be
necessary to choose a home location that meets some needs, like being walking distance
from the children's school. It might be taking aposition that has flex-time schedules. It
might be inviting a relative into your home or to move nearby to help with child care. The
point is to keep considering possibilities and to keep pressure on your ex-wife to
relinquish the children for their own benefit.
KiDDSNotes Versio~ Date: May 29,1994 Page 297

The Unicorn, the Mermaid, and the

Better Parent

There is no credible way to pick the better parent from two fit parents unless we
decide what constitutes a better child and a better adult. Custody has to be decided
on other grounds.

Some people think that children should be in the custody of the better parent, and
they think of "better parent" in terms of parenting skills. They feel that the court should
make an evaluation of both parents' parenting ability, and, if joint custody is not in the
cards for one reason or another, that it should give custody to the one with the most talent
for that sort of thing. This seems like a good idea, one that would certainly be in the best
interests of the children.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work. The concept of better parent falls apart when we
ask what it means to be a better parent. It is not too hard to define what is meant by an
unfit parent, i.e., one who is abusive, neglectful, unstable, incompetent, addicted, violent,
or who simply does not want to be around a child. This probably leaves more than half of
the population, or even three-quarters in the fit category. But beyond this categorization,
the going gets rough.
It is hard to imagine an involved parent who is bad at everything. We are all '
different, and that doesn't mean that any of us is better than any other. One of us may
emphasize schooling more than most, and that certainly is an important part of a child's
life. Having a successful school career is something a child should be happy with. Others
feel that character is most important attribute in a person, and stress to their children the
qualities needed for this, both by word and by deed. Others feel that socialization is
important, and teach their children how to get along with others. Some stress self-reliance
while others stress cooperation. Some stress perseverance, while others teach their child
how to adapt. In short, there is no best child to rear, and there is no best way to rear a
child. Our society has need of all these traits, and one of its wonders is how different
people can work together to produce the most marvelous phenomena: businesses,
inventions, writings, art, vehicles, sports, and on and on. How could we ever hope to find
some sort of rating scheme for parents that would tell us who was the best parent?
Probably all of us could come up with a rating scheme that emphasized what we
thought was important in rearing a child. And we would probably all do pretty well in our
own schemes. That proves nothing other than we can live up to our own preferences and
goals. This is the American way, individualism stressed to the utmost.
Someone who takes pride in their intellectual apparatus may think that the best
parent is the smartest one, and this kind of person can probably come up with fifteen well-
thought -out rationales as to why this is true. Another person, who is proud of their
compassion and sensitivity, knows deep in their heart that to hold a child and feel their
needs intuitively is by far more important that any IQ scores. A well-organized person
knows how hard it is to be a single parent, and knows that organization is the key to being
Page 298 , Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes

a better parent. A "child's best friend" type parent knows organization is not worth
anything if your child isn't happy, In short, if we tried to put the question to a vote, we
would find a great diversity and perhaps no significant plurality. There is no "best quality"
to have. We each have differing amounts of each quality, and two pounds ofIQ can't be
compared to three feet of compassion or a half-acre of organization. Nobody has figured
out how to compare these different aspects because no one has figured out what makes
the best kind of person. There is no best kind of person. There is no best kind of kid.
There is no best way to pick a better parent from two fit candidates.
Some people might say that experience is the deciding factor in rearing a child,
According to this rule, the better parent is the one who has the most time already served in
parenting. But what's to learn? How to change a diaper? That takes a few minutes to
learn? How to hug a child? That is learned in the instant it takes our natural instincts to
turn on the first time we pick up our newborn. The rest of the skills, how to wash clothes
or to change light bulbs, can be learned one by one as they are needed. You ask
somebody or read a book. .Basic hygiene? Common sense tells us that. Parenting isn't a
hard job from the standpoint of the knowledge or household skills that are involved.
What about the psychology? Some people communicate better than others. Not
very important, as most kids are persistent enough to keep trying until they are
understood, and the parent subjected to this learns to communicate just to put an end to
the process.
Some people are more cautious than others. No one wants to have accidents, but
anyone not too aware of common household accidents can read a pamphlet about it from
the government and know as much as most people do. Parenting magazines have article
after article on how to protect children from one hazard after another, probably more than
any parent has time to keep up with.
It's time to give up on the contest for finding a way to pick the better parent. At
least as far as younger children go, parenting is parenting. If someone is not unfit, there is
little that can be said about whether they are better or worse than another not unfit parent.
Actually there is a lot that can be said, emphasizing the various traits that orie or the other
are better at. But, as pointed out before, the traits are not clearly preferable. This means
that parents competing for custody in situations where distance or some other factor
makes a sharing arrangement impossible have to realize that their children, at younger
ages, might not be too bad off with the other person.
It also means that psychological evaluations to decide which parent would be the
"better parent" aren't worth a plug nickel. They are useful in finding some unfit parents,
i.e., penetrating the facade that some parents put up to cover their deficits in fitness. But
when they go further than that, they flounder on the same grounds as discussed above. A
psychologist can do a series of tests and evaluate the personality type of the two parents,
and find, correctly or not, that one parent is introverted and academically oriented, and the
other is extroverted and more social, to use an example. But, so what. They have only
their prejudices to pick between these two parents' qualities. Introverts and extroverts
rear fine children. Academic types and social types rear fine children. The psychologist
may think that one is preferable, but there is simply no evidence for it.
It may be possible to prove that a social parent rears more social children, or that
an academic parent has children who do better at schooling. But, which is better, a child
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 " Page 299

with better social skills or one with better academic grades. You might as well flip a coin.
Yet a psychologist with ingrained prejudices can charge fees of several thousand dollars to
come to these conclusions.
This shows why hunting for the right psychologist is worth the trouble if you want
to become custodial parent. If you are social and extroverted, you need merely find a
psychologist who adheres to the theory that this is the most important feature in rearing
children. Hopefully the court will buy off on his or her expert opinion.
If our nation ever made some sort of human rating system, i.e., knowing a certain
amount of Trivial Pursuits' answers makes you an A, B, C, D or E class human, we could
than start rating parenting abilities. But until that happens, we are going to have to deal
with a system that has no capability to discriminate between parenting abilities.
What does this mean for divorce cases in which custody has to be decided upon
and there are two not-unfit parents in the running for chief parent?
. In some states, this understanding is codified in law (but not explained in the least),
and custody is supposed to be given to the parent most likely to involve the other parent in
parenting. In other words, with two fit parents hanging around, why not use both of them
as much as possible, and put the one in charge who is going to get the other one involved
the most. This is a good idea in theory, and if the courts actually took the time to filter
out the unfit parents it would be good practice. Instead, they often just use this rule
blindly to justify granting custody to whoever's lawyer told them to say they wanted the
other parent involved. It possibly puts a premium on being able to put together an image
of reasonableness and cooperativeness, behind which may lurk nothing but greed and
hatred.
Since courts don't filter out unfit mothers as candidates for custodial dictator, each
father has to carefully put together his own opinion of the fitness of his ex-wife before
deciding which way to go in the custody process. Then, ifhe decides she is definitely not
fit, he has to come up with a custody strategy. But if he does decide she is fit, and
therefore capable of rearing his children satisfactorily, he has to decide if there is some
special reason he wants to have custody, for example, to allow them to take advantage of
special schooling or athletics they want or need, to benefit from his teaching them about
the business he wants to leave to them, or some other purpose.
The "neither is better" rule also means that there is no reason for our courts to
pursue to continue their omnipresent prejudice for maternal custody. There is no reason
why a father can not do as well at parenting as a mother. This means there is no reason
not to grant fathers custody in most situations where they request it, should the courts
ever come to realize that too many single mothers means trouble for the nation.
Some other rules that courts use to decide between two parents who both appear
fit to them are the "stability" rule, which is the most-used dodge for granting mothers
custody where there is enough pro-mom prejudice in the heart of the custody evaluator or
judge to make this a mandatory decision, and the "equity" rule that says that the mom gets
custody because dad has a good job. Neither of these has any basis in sociological study,
but they make good reading when a judge wants to move a case through his courtroom.
They take no thought, no evaluation, no investigation, just a little time to notice that the
mother is still breathing and hasn't visibly abused or molested any children during the time
she has been sitting in the courtroom.
 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

One rule that used to be used, but that went out of favor a half century ago, is the
"most financially capable" rule, which usually meant Dad, who had the money back then,
got thekids, too. It was the inverse of the equity rule, which goes to show that any rule
or its inverse can be used in a court of law and still be legally justifiable. Everything is
subservient to politics.
For older children, the question is not so much about who is the better parent, but
who will better prepare them for their adult lives. This concept is summed up by saying
that, when two parents volunteer to be custodial parents of older children, the one who
provides the best role model should do the job, everything else being equal. This criterion,
which involves who is the best person to be a full-time example to the children, has little to
do with parenting abilities, which are assumed to be adequate in both parents.
KiDDS Notes Version Date: May 29. 1994 ' Page 301

Protecting Your
Custociy
Page 302 Version Date: May 29,1994· KiDDS Notes ...
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 303

Defensive Moves

It is little use to gain custody if you arejust going to lose it after a while. You
need to think all the time about what you need to do to keep it. Fortunately, the
answer usually is:~Be a good father.

When you got custody, did your ex-wife take it well? If not, you had better plan
on how to keep it. Custody awards, especially to fathers, can be overturned in an instant.
You need to get into the bunker and prepare for incoming enemy fire. The battle for
custody is never over for a father as long as bigots inhabit our courts.
You cannot count on continuing custody because you know that the judge who
gave it to you is an honorable and fair gentleman. Judges come and go. The next one you
get may be from hell.
The worst of all situations is when your ex voluntarily relinquished custody for
some temporary reason, and the judge you are blessed with would rather see a father as
road kill than as a custodial parent. When your ex gets her act together, she can come
back with some excuse, and there goes the kids. One day they are with you, and the next
day they are gone. There are judges with attitudes like this, and there are documented
cases with decisions like this .: Children are ping pong balls in the view of some judges, as
long as the bounce is from father to mother. This is one reason why selection of a judge .
to hear your case is most important, but, judges change and new judges come to court
with no record of their custody preferences. You have to wait and find out. Fortunately
most judges require some level of reasonable excuse to take children out of a fathers
home, if they have been there a substantial time, and give them to an ex-wife's custody.
Unless you think it is in the children's best interests to change the custody situation, you
need to eliminate those excuses.
If you made a smart or lucky choice of wife, and sharing custody with your ex
would not be hard on your children, perhaps even beneficial, you do not need any advice.
You only need to work with her to achieve an efficient way of doing joint custody, set up
a custody plan, get the court to approve it, and you are on your way. If your ex is not
reasonable about sharing custody, can not be trusted to live up to agreements, is not a
particularly good mother or role model for your children, or is simply out to get back to
living on child support because her other plans didn't work out, you need to prepare for
conflict.
To take over custody, either sole or joint, your ex needs to succeed on two steps.
The first is to get the court to agree to reconsider its custody award. Some judges regard
anything that happens in the children's or parents' lives as justification for another round of
blasting away at fathers' rights. Did your ex move closer to the children's school?
Custody change time! Did she change jobs so she has more time free? Custody change
time! Since many judges regard male custody as unnatural, they are simply looking for
these excuses. An aware lawyer on your ex's side will know this and will be back in court
as soon as one of these excuses happens. You can argue against rehearing the custody
question, and in many cases, all you will get is a strange look from the judge. You are a
 Page 304 Version Date: May 29,1994 . KiDDSNot~
k ',".,

weird person, and why should you be listened to? "Let's check out the facts, first, Mr.
Custodial Father, and just see how you are doing." Other judges are well aware of the
need for stability in children's lives, or know that their custody evaluation staffknows that,
and won't open up the custody decision unless something substantial occurs that is going
to undermine that stability.
The second step, if you get to it, is the custody review itself You need to defend
against your ex's moves in any review of a custody decision, as doing nothing but relying
on good luck is like surrender. Anticipation is the key. What strategies will your vengeful
ex-wife use to regain custody of your children? List them and prepare for them.
If your children are over the age of 12, or 10 or 14 depending on the court, one
way is to work through the children directly. They can be asked to express their
preferences during the process of custody evaluation. How children make such choices
depends on many factors, including how the questions are asked for children who are too
.. young to have clear ideas of their preferences or who are too afraid to speak out or who
are too depressed or lacking in self-esteem to ask for what they want. Such children may
see what the custody evaluation official wants them to say, and such preferences can be
easily conveyed. "Wouldn't you like to live with your mother now?" coming from the
mouth of a bigoted custody evaluator can be enough to ruin the custody situation of an
unprepared father.
The first step in preparation is to be assigned an evaluator who does not hold men
responsible for all the troubles of the world or otherwise hold a grudge against them.
Good advice, from lawyers or other divorced fathers, is essential here. Learning as much
about the evaluator in the first round of custody decision, even though your ex defaulted,
is good strategy, as evaluators often remain on a case through hearing and rehearing.
With a good evaluator, you can use reasonable arguments and information that you have
collected. With a bad one, you need to get outside experts involved. That does not mean
friends or relatives, but trained psychological evaluators. And you need to know if the
outside evaluators are as tipped toward females as the court staff. In either case, your
arguments would center around the children being too young or immature to be given
much voice in the custody decision.
If the children are older, 14 or more, it is hard to force them to stay in a custody
situation they do not want. Sometimes, if one child is mature and a sibling is not, they will
be kept together for a year or two more so that the younger child can do some more
growing up before being asked about his or her preferences. However, other situations
can happen. The older child can pressure or threaten the younger one to go along with
him or her or to remain neutral. The court can split the children if they make opposing
choices. In any case, you need to make your custodial home preferable for them.
If you are being a good father and have had enough time with your children so that
they can realize it, chances are your children will not disappoint you. Mature children can
recognize when one parent loves them and cares for them, and the other does not, but, for
example, wants a life support system. If one parent provides a calm and peaceful
environment, and the other can not control her outbursts and remain rational, most
children will opt for the calm home. But problems can arise, both with presents and with
freedom.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 305

If your ex dangles promises of material goods before the children, talks about how
much she misses them and all the fun they could have if they were together, you need to
prepare them. Your children may not to be sophisticated enough to recognize such
pitches for what they are, especially if the court asks them for their preference when they
are too immature to make one based on their own best interests. Children today compete
with their peers, starting as young as elementary school age, on the basis of what they own
and what they wear. If your ex-wife has the wherewithal to provide more material
advantages than you do, then you have to make a choice of seeking child support from
her, which could set off the court from allowing you to keep custody as courts often
. dislike making women pay anything to their ex-husbands, or trying to overcome the
material disadvantages with emotional or developmental advantages. The resolution
depends on your children and on the court personnel.
Competing for your children's allegiance is a minefield, both for you and for them.
Both emotional and logical arguments may be used. If you have been able to help them
get through school and do well there, and they are old enough and mature enough to
appreciate the value of this, then they may make the decision to stay with you based on
their own futureplans. If they have a strong emotional connection with you, with love
flowing strongly in both directions, they may not want to leave you on that basis alone.
You should warn them in advance of some of the arguments that their mother might make,
not in a tone of ordering them to answer them in a certain way, but in the tone of
preparing them to be able to resist your ex-wife's cunning. She may appeal to their pity, if
she complains about how lonely she is without them. She can appeal to their sense of
fairness, arid ask them to tell the court that they want an even split, or to live with her for
as many years as they have lived with you, or some other plan to balance your time with
them. She can appeal to their ego, and tell them how important they are to her life and
how big a role they will play in it. All of these sales pitches need to be discussed, if your
children are likely to have to hear them and not be overwhelmed by them.
This is good preparation, but real preparation should be done as early as possible,
starting with the day after you get custody. You need to not give your children any reason
to want to leave. Your children must be aware that they are not a burden to you, but a
joy. You simply tell them this, and express yourself clearly so they understand you mean
it. Your interaction with your children should be positive almost all of the time. If it is
not, you are slipping up on child-rearing.
If, before the divorce action started, you reared them to be totally materialistic,
i.e., their values were allowed to become centered on what they own or wear or
experience, you have already made a fundamental mistake. You have set yourself up to be
bought out unless the judge somehow missed sending you to the cleaners and you have
some resources left. Start immediately correcting such impressions. Center your own
values on something more substantial, like family time together, joint activities, assistance
and tutoring, development of responsibility in the children, community activity or
something else.
YO\l ma.y need help in overcoming this. If your ex had custody of the children [or

a period before you got them, they may have picked up her values. Values do not change
rapidly, but they change gradually with steady pressure. The pressure you exert is not in
the form of exhortation, but occurs with good example and gentle reason, Talk about
Page 306 . KiDDSNotes

self-respect. Talk about enjoying each other's time, .Talkaboutyour ,own goalsand
interests. Ordering around children at this age is too much, too late." -.'
Freedom is a second carrot that your ex can dangle in front of your children.
Freedom from chores, freedom from discipline, freedom from concentrating on
schoolwork, freedom to watch whatever they want to on television or in the movies,
freedom to associate with whomever they prefer, in essence, freedom to escape from the
guidance that you have been providing and sheltering them with. If your children feel that
you are making restrictions on their lives with no good reason, they may choose the
custody change route to rebel and escape them. The obvious solution is to communicate
with them, over and over, until you both understand the other's viewpoints. Don't assume
that, just because you are an adult, that your decisions will always be best for your
children. The best decisions for children, except very young ones, are made after you
communicate with them, listening to their thoughts and adapting your restrictions to their
needs. Tell them your reasons and listen to their objections.
Children do not necessarily want to live without restrictions, unless something has
gone seriously wrong in their upbringing. They want to live by rules, but they want to
have rules that are practical and sensible, and ones that are imposed with love and
consideration for their feelings and their needs. Ignoring this, and trying to insist on
copying rules from your own childhood, or ones that worked for some other family, may
be a recipe for the loss of your children. Treat your children as intelligent little people,
worth listening to, and worth thinking about. Come up with solutions after you have
thought about it, rather than trying to vainly impose them without argument.
Furthermore, start early to establish rules to follow. You cannot suddenly impose rules on
children who have grown up for several years without them. Make gradual changes if you
need to make any changes.
With younger children, your ex will probably want to have evidence that you are
doing something wrong. Do not allow one or more of your children to fail in school. This
is an excuse for removal. Take care that they are not injured through lack of care and
thoughtfulness on your part. Is there serious conflict between two of your children?
Some judges will split up the children in a family, while others will not. Don't take the
chance by allowing the children to grow to dislike each other, although normal sibling
rivalry is clearly going to be present Start early to reinforce anti-drug education, and to
help them associate with other well-rounded and well-balanced children, either in sports or
some other youth organizations. Help them appreciate the values and the dangers of sex,
and make sure you understand what they are hearing from their peers. Monitor their
television viewing, or, possibly even better, eliminate it and replace that time with
something that will help them learn and grow better. Choose gifts that teach rather than
ones that distract. And explain why you did what you did, in terms your children can
understand. Let them know that you think about their future in every decision concerning
them that you make.
Another ex-wife ploy is for her to show that she can provide them with advantages
that you can not. Perhaps she has a new husband or friend who wishes to help in their
care. If you have not found a mate yourself, it is two against one. Surprisingly enough,
this is rarely enough to cause the court to grant a change of custody by itself However, it
is additional weight if anything else should go wrong.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29. 1994 Page 307

This does not mean that. if any aspect of your children's lives takes a turn for the
worse, then you will lose custody. It may mean that you must attend to any problem
immediately, as if something continues for a period of time, the court can think that you
are not giving the children the attention they deserve. Since you are a father, it is to be
expected that your attention will not be devoted to children, but to other aspects of life.
Don't confirm their prejudices. Do not let problems go unattended, and document all the
ways you work to fix them. If children have school problems, be in to see the teachers,
tutor at home or send them to a tutoring service. Keep good notes of what you have
done, and why. If there is a problem with. .bad friends, leading a child of yours to mischief,
.
vandalism, or other deviant behavior, break off the friendship ifat all possible, and explain
to your child why you are doing so. Do it with love, rather than as a dictator. Love
works with children when orders do not.
If you take all these steps and still worry about custody decisions, talk to other
Parents. about how they solved similar problems with their children. Single parent groups
often provide workshops or other get-togethers to discuss parent-child problems. And do
not wait until your ex has filed 'court papers requesting a change in custody to get started
on your children's problems. Children should have first priority in your life. That's why
you have custody, isn't it?
Page.308. Version Date: May 29. 1994
, '.. ) ' •.:' .".' .. .-
'~ . , . " .. ,
' '
KiDDSNotes
 KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 309"

Legal Custody

Legal custody gives a non-custodial mother the opportunity to go on fishing

expeditions to find out justification for changing custody back to her. A father needs
to know how to deal with it. the earlier the better.

If you receive custody, it is likely to be listed as primary physical custody. Legal

custody will remain joint between the two parents in almost every divorce. Only if one of
the parents has criminal tendencies or is in another extreme situation such as default, i.e.,
where a parent does not show up for a hearing, is legal custody not parceled out. In
normal circumstances, there seems to be no way that 3; custodial parent can deny the other
one joint legal custody.
There is little benefit that can be gained from having half of legal custody, but there
is a potential for nuisance. It gives your ex the right to inspect your children's school
records, medical records, and police records, if any. It gives her the right to poke around
and attempt to find something that is not perfect in your rearing of a child, and then to use
it to harass you or, at the worst, be used in a hearing to reverse the custody situation.
Of course, it gives you, the father, the same rights in the reverse situation. But to
have rights is not to have cooperation. Non-custodial mothers are such pathetic figures in
our society that most people, especially males in positions of authority, act to assist them
as much as possible. They are imagined to lie awake, night after night, dreaming of their
lost children and the day that they will be reunited. Non-custodial fathers wear the
opprobrium of "deadbeat dad". Ifa father seeks information, it may be assumed that he is
using it to seek to cause trouble to his ex-wife. He is thought to be seeking to deny her
support by getting some dirt on her. Get help under these circumstances.
Damage limitation is in order here. If you have established your credentials as a
concerned father at your children's schools, by attending all the conferences, working with
your children on projects, monitoring their homework, and getting them to school in
.,"--
presentable condition, you can expect some help. Simply ask the teachers to not volunteer
any information, and let them know, in advance, that your ex likes going on fishing
expeditions. Let them know why you are worried that she might gain custody and the ill
effects that would happen to the children, especially their self-esteem. With luck, your ex
will be restricted to the legally mandated grade reports. She will have a harder time
making up a catalog of the times you couldn't get your child's school supplies on time, or
when your child hit another in class. These are irrelevant in the larger picture, but the
teachers might not know what a lawyer can do with simple statements like this. A little
classroom pushing incident can be turned into an indication of the violent tendencies that
the child learns at home. A logbook of such events gains weight all out of proportion to
the actual meaning of the incidents.
Don't forget that the court is looking for justification to return custody to the
parent who naturally deserves it (the mother!). Anything that looks good on paper can be
used. Your claims that the incidents in your ex's logbook are trivialities that occur in
every child's life are not supported by evidence. The logbook is evidence. Your claims
Page 310, Version Date: May 29. 1994 KinDS Notes.

are simply excuses. Therefore you need to forestall such hostile data collection at the
source.
Shortly after the divorce, or a change in custody, your children are going to be
disoriented and may behave in ways that they would not have normally. If the police are
involved, you need to demonstrate that your response is immediate and appropriate.
Otherwise your ex may use the police report or reports to discredit you. Evaluators and
judges know that kids act up in new situations and that divorce is traumatic and produces
misbehavior. However, that doesn't mean that they won't respond to claims that your
custody is producing irresponsibility in the children. It may be that their mother is much
more responsible for your children's misbehavior, by diminishing the children's interests in
pleasant diversions like sports by demeaning them. But you will never be able to prove
that. Better to spend time talking to your children in advance of any problems. Use the
good relationship between you and your children to work on these problems, and above
all, give your child the love and trust he or she needs to get over these problems.
 r( , ,-

Version Date: May 29: 1994 Page 311

Temptation

A non-custodial mother's last chance for custody can occur when her child reaches
adolescence. If the father has not prepared him or her to resist the offer of an easier
life. the child may choose to leave and lose some of the benefits of Dad's teaching.

With a sweet, sweet smile on her face, mothersays, "If you come to live with me, I
won't make you work so hard in school. You've been through a lot, and you deserve to
take it easy. You can drop out if you want to. And I won't make you come home in the
evening until you want to. You can stay out with your friends all you want."
For a custodial father who has struggled mightily in helping his children recover
from a divorce, nurtured them through their early years, or worked with them to help them
do well in school, a mother's temptation to a child to throw his or her future away and
take it easy represents one of the greatest challenges. It may be a vindictive mother's last
attempt to destroy all her husband has worked for with their children. It may be the final
attempt of a mother with no career achievements to bring her children down to her own
level. It may be an unemployed mother's last chance to gain a big block of child support
to support her own indolence.
When a child reaches an age where he or she has a big say in which parent he or
she lives with, a non-custodial mother can work on him or her to bring him or her back to
his mother's care by promising ease instead of discipline. If the child were capable of adult
reasoning, he or she would be able to see this temptation as a siren song, leading to
nothing more than his or her own loss. It is nothing more than the temptation to depart
from the path leading to a life of achievement and take up the path leading to failure.
Yet this temptation can appeal to children in some situations. One of the more
vulnerable groups are those with low self-esteem. A child who has been assaulted during
childhood by a psychologically abusive mother may have his or her self-esteem
catastrophically reduced. A father who works hard to restore the child's feeling of worth
can achieve some measure of progress, depending on how long and how severe the
psychological abuse was. Yet the mind is not erasable like a blackboard; what the mother
wrote in the child's early memories will always remain there. Therapy by a sensitive
psychologist or counselor can also aid the child in rebuilding self-esteem. But the mother's
early damage will wait there, lurking until something comes along to call it into action.
The resumption of the mother's attempt to gain custody when a child reaches adolescence
may be such a call.
Children who have been physically abused also often develop a low sense of self-
esteem. It is as if the child blames himself for the mother abusing him by assuming he or
she is a bad or unworthy child. A young child does not have the reasoning ability to
deduce if there is any real justification for the mother's beating or abuse, and simply
assumes it is his or her own fault.
Children who have been witnesses to battling between the parents also can develop
a low sense of self-esteem, as can children who have been in difficult economic problems
or who have been nomadic. Many other causes can lead to low self-esteem. If the child
Page ,312 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

has never had any opportunity to develop a sense of worth in any part of his or her life,
e.g., with peers, with school or other social arrangements, to make up for being given a
message of a lack of worth that he or she receives from his or her mother, the resulting
level of self-esteem can be rock-bottom.
Such children feel that they are failures, and an invitation by a mother to change
custody and come to live with her may be almost irresistible. Their feelings of failure will
be matched by the lack of pressure their mother may offer. Instead of having to struggle
in their father's custody against the self-esteem problem, the problem can be put aside and
life can be simpler.
What should a custodial father do in such a situation? First, he must work to
maintain his option to have custody. If the child's preferences are given great weight in
court, some countervailing testimony, perhaps by a professional evaluator or psychologist
who knows the whole family, could be used. However, in today's overbusy courts, or
before a prejudiced judge, a child saying he wants to go live with mom will be listened to.
On the other hand, fathers are often denied custody of children who want to live with
them for reasons of stability or whatever other excuse suits the judge or court evaluator.
The real solution is to establish the correct bond with the child for the period
before the custody change decision comes up. A father should make sure that his children
are not in doubt about his love and affection for them, not by him telling them so, but by .
the amount of time he devotes to them. Time spent earning money for them simply does
not count; it has little emotional effect. Physically providing for them, putting their
interests first, giving them time for communication, being appreciative of their
achievements and helping them with their difficulties are needed. If a bond like this is
established, so that the child can appreciate the real love that his or her father provides,
then the blandishments of a mother offering ease will not seem so attractive.
If a mother offers advantages that the father denies, there may be a great conflict in
the child's mind. Perhaps the father realizes that the child is not ready for a car, for
example because he or she is already too lackadaisical about schooling or because of a
lack of maturity or even for economic reasons. Perhaps also the mother is willing to
provide the car. Perhaps the child's peers have cars.
Should the father go against his own better judgment in order to keep the child
home with him rather than with a mother who would undermine the child's possible
achievements and lower his or her possible successes through life. If the child is able to
comprehend that, and desires to make a success out of himself or herself, he or she can
withstand the offer of a car.
There really is not a universal solution to problems like this, other than to make
use of the advantage of a father's love and to reason with the child. If the courts are going
to provide the passageway to a mother's custody, or if the child himself or herself is going
to insist on leaving, there is nothing that a father can do other than to hope that his lessons
have already sunk deep enough that they will remain valid despite the mother's abrasions
of them ..
 ~~ ....
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 313

Collecting Child Support

Women who do not have custody often benefit by pro-female biases in child
support awards. These awards are often delayed for extended job searches and other
excuses, and live-in girlfriends avoid it completely.

Everyone has talked or written about deadbeat dads, fathers who are behind in
paying child support. Despite the lack of alliteration, non-custodial mothers have an even
worse child support compliance record. Their deadbeat ratio would be even higher than it
already is except for a saving fact. Women have ways of avoiding being ordered to pay
child support that men cannot use.
It's very simple. You can't get bloodout ofa stone, If you have aleisure wife,
one who doesn't work, stays home and keeps the house for you, and she decides to run off
with someone else, leaving you the children, you don't get any child support. If it were a
man, even a historically unemployed man, who runs off and lives with a new girl friend, he
would find himself instantly and immediately ordered by the court to find work and to
report back on his progress. He would be put on a short fuse. The woman is lei off.
Even if she is capable of working, she may not be ordered to do so. Who knows
what goes through judges' minds when they make these decisions? Perhaps they feel the
woman wouldn't have left her mate ifhe had been a good husband. This ignores the fact
that child support is supposed to be for rearing the children, not for the husband's benefit.
Certainly his costs of child-rearing are going up, without a wife to assist. No matter, no
problem. No support.
Perhaps she worked before, and is physically and mentally capable of doing it
again. Perhaps her ex-husband makes a row in court about unfairness and all that boring
stuff. She might be given a stem admonishment to find something she would like to do to
support her children. A time limit? Hardly. Prescribed consequences of continuing as a
leisure wife (rather, a leisure girlfriend)? None. Perhaps further, even more severe
admonishment might be given.
What if she is working, making a good income, and a month before her husband's
court date comes up to decide child support, she quits. She simply out and out resigns,
not for cause, not in anticipation of a layoff, not for health reasons. What happens? She
says she needs to find a better job, but none has materialized. Oh, well, no support.
Come back in three months. Ex-wife is instructed to look for gainful employment. Three
months later: no work. More admonishment. "How much time do you think you need to
find suitable work?" asks the judge. "I can't tell, your Honor," she replies in a sad tone.
"I'm doing my best." A man deliberately quitting to avoid support would probably be
incarcerated, unless he had assets that the court could take.
Suppose she is working, making a good income, and reports to the court she is
not. According to her sworn statement, she is making barely enough to survive. Zero
support ordered. Back you go to court in a few months, after subpoenaing her
employment records. Her income was offby a factor of3! What happens? Ajuicy
perjury charge? Not quite. Instead you hear from the bench, "We can't keep coming back
 Page 314 Version Date: May 29,1994, IGDDSNotes
-.. ~ ;

to these same issues over and over. This has all been decided. Dismissed." You may not
have been able to get her employment data by the court date, 'or even suspected the
dodge, but your children do without part of their support by their mother because you
didn't have it earlier. Or so the excuse goes.
The circumstances are different, the details vary, but the general result is that in
, some courts, with some judges, women using the incompetence ploy do not have to pay
child support. The fact that they spend their time on the beach or in the mountains matters
nothing at all. After all, even the judge needs a break from time to time.
What recourse does a man with custody have to obtain child support? From a
woman with a good, verifiable job that she is not willing to quit and for which you have
evidence about her income in advance of a hearing, support can probably be obtained if
the ratio of your incomes is within a range that is set by the state. From a more creative
type, who would be just as happy to take off a few years to get over the stress of the bad
marriage and the divorce, who is depressed over the loss of her children, who can't seem
to get it together, there is little chance. From a woman with substantially less income than
you have, it is very chancy. Some judges might give it, other will sidestep the issue and
allow excuses to delay and prolong any award, even for years.
There are even more advanced excuses that can be given resulting in delays. One
fairly unique one is when, on the date that the father's child support request is scheduled to
be heard in court, the mother's lawyer asks to withdraw, that is, to quit as her lawyer. If
the judge allows it, then she is given plenty of time to find another one and prepare for
another round of evasion. Ifhe doesn't, he is led to believe that there is a conflict between
lawyer and client, and client is not being well served. Perhaps a continuance is in order so
that the two can work out their differences. ' When dad comes back, many months later,
the withdrawal finally goes through and he is back on square one. Time to wait while she
looks for a lawyer. If she has trouble finding one, another continuance. What happens to
dad and the kids? By law at least in California, a child support award can be made
retroactive to the date of the request. But it doesn't have to be. Guess what often
happens. One year of no support.
The sum of this is simply that, in some courts, child support payments by women
are treated lightly, compared to those from men, which are almost compelled with armed
force. And it is the children who suffer from this attitude.
The same sort of prejudice can be seen in some treatments by the media on
"deadbeat dads". The very label is sexist, and ignores the real problem custodial fathers
have in getting support. The media bias probably arises because of the same prejudices
that court bias does. To many men and women, women are not supposed to be the equals
of men when it comes to paying bills, either for their children or for themselves, The
perpetuation of that bias does everyone a disservice, especially women who have worked
hard to establish their own equality in various formerly-male professions. They should
continue the struggle for female equality by denouncing the divorce court judges who
patronize or subsidize women.
 ~ . . -j..:.~.~
K.iDDS Notes- Version Date; May 29; 1994 Page 315

Doing Custod.y
Page 316 Version Date: May 29. 1994 KiDDSNotes
KiDDS NoteS -. Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 317

Pampering the Vlctirns

A custodial father has to plan on spending plenty of time helping his children
recover from divorce. Learning how children develop and then applying this
knowledge daily is the best way. There is no substitute for quantity time.

Even if you and your ex worked out a simple divorce and a mutually acceptable
custody arrangement, your children will still have endured a great amount of stress from
having gone through the divorce process. The separation from at least one parent and the
ending of the marital relationship between the parents causes them to be confused and
upset. If there has been squabbling, long court battles, psychological investigations, verbal
attacks By one parent on the other to the children, violence at home, financial difficulties,
or any of the other host of terrors that divorce can bring, the emotional injuries to the
children can be very severe and can interfere with their functioning. Schoolwork can be
halted, behavior can become bizarre, peer friendships can become impossible, depression
can result, sibling rivalry can grow to imitate parental conflict, drug or alcohol use may
start, or any of a host of problems can beset children following a divorce.
Some ages are more susceptible, and some children are more susceptible. Some
recover faster and some slower. Some effects are regrettably permanent, Most are
temporary, but should be relieved as much as possible anyway. Some of the effects are
obvious, for example if schoolwork has been interfered with and the child does not learn
some basic building blocks that he or she needs to go forward with. Some are subtle, as
when a child blames himself for the divorce and in so doing, shatters his or her own self-
esteem. Some effects become physical, as when a child reverts to earlier behaviors such as
thumb-sucking. Others remain mental, for example, periodic unexplained moodiness and
uncommunicativeness.
As custodial parent, you should do what you can to ameliorate the suffering
starting as soon as you are able. Do not wait for overt symptoms to arise. Start
immediately, even before the divorce is over, to help your children get through the divorce
and the change to your custody. To do that, you need to show your children that you are
a reliable parent, that you can be trusted and that you have their interests at heart. You
need to prove to them that you will not add to their feeling of abandonment. Never even
mention leaving them.
Time is essential. There ain't no such animal as quality time for a child suffering
from the pain of divorce. Quantity time is necessary. Be there all the time you can.
Forgo personal activities you might be used to, such as weekends off or nights out.
Leaving a child with a sitter simply implies that the child is not important (there goes self-
esteem) and that you are likely to go offpennanently. Be there constantly if at all possible
during the year or so after the initial separation, except for something like work that
children can understand demands your time.
There was a rash of recommendations some time ago that parents "get away"
frequently. These suggestions were given both to intact parental pairs and to single
parents. A better suggestion is to let yourselflove your children so much that time with
 Page 318 Version Date: May 29, 1994.
,. ~ .' v
KiDDS Notes ,

them is better than any getaway vacation. Children are a fantastic excuse to have fun.
They love activity of any kind: Goto a park or a'zoo. Go tothe library, bring home
books and read them. Do a jigsaw puzzle. Play ball. Take a bike ride. Go camping.
There is virtually no limit on what you can do as a custodial single parent. Find activities
that you can all enjoy and do. You build up your own self-esteem at the same time as
building theirs. There is little more to be proud of than to help your own children recover
from one of the worst experiences of their lives.
Material possessions do not replace quantity time. You cannot buy presents for
. your child and hope to replace what they are missing in parental contact. New objects
sitting in a playroom mean little to a child who is left alone by both parents. Even if you
could distract your child with fascinating toys, you do not want your child to grow up
focusing on objects instead of relating to people. You are the person they need to relate
to the most, and you need to be there to do it. Even if your ex makes a point out of
buying gifts for your children, do not get into a race to spoil them materially. Let it
become a race between her presents and your attention. There is no contest there.
Certain ages have special requirements. If you are not a very experienced parent,
and few people are, take the time to learn what you can about child development. Many
books exist covering all ages of children.
For example, it is extremely important that a parent be physical with younger
children. Hold them, hug them, dance with them, carry them around. Studies have shown
that babies must have physical contact to develop normally, One could assume that
younger children crave it as well, up to elementary school age.
School age children need communication. A parent needs to develop a sense of
how to talk to his child or children. The key to this is listening and adapting your style of
communicating to match the intellectual level of the child. It is very frustrating for a child
to be unable to comprehend the adult speech that his custodial parent uses. Adult speech
does not impress younger children, and there is no need to impress children anyway. The
point is to be someone they can talk to.
By the time a child gets to be a teenager, relations between parent and child
change. There is less physical contact, fun and games, tender attention. What replaces it
is being a good example. The early teenage years are ones in which the child is patterning
his life after the examples he or she sees. Be the kind of example that you want your child
to follow. Be honest and tactful. Be punctual and reliable. Be whatever it is that you
wish your child to be. Be the kind of parent you would have wanted your own father to
be. If you cannot live up to your own goals, do your best and possibly let your child know
that you wish you could be better. Share your own goals with your child. Help your child
set his or her own goals.
The time and effort that you spend with your child at each year of the child's life
will make parenting the child in later years easier. A parent-child relationship is something
that should be ideally grown like a tree, with each year having it become stronger and
more resilient. By the time your child reaches adulthood, the lessons you taught and the
good example you set will be the standards that your child follows. Nothing can replace
the pride of a father in a child who has turned out well. i
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 319

Blocking Visitation

If a mother is bent on destroying the psychological stability of her children during

visitation, and the court will give them no help at all, a father might simply block
visitation. It's not easy, but neither is helping the children to recover.

It is the stated policy of most if not all states to promote contact by both parents
with their children. When it comes to enforcing visitation by fathers, that policy is simply
a loud, raucous joke. One of the most common complaints by male court victims is that
they don't get to see their children. And the courts do nothing.
The other universal complaint by male court victims is that their ordered payments
to an ex-wife who has custody of their children are excessive. However, the legislature of
at least the State of California, and probably all others, have made it clear that an ex-wife
who continues to thwart visitation can still collect every cent of her expropriation. Like
always, there is no recourse for a father in this situation short of mass action.
The other side of the coin is the situation where a man has custody, and his ex-wife
has a visitation schedule. It seems that generous visitation is always provided to women
who are not confined in solitary on death row at the time of the award, whereas a man,
even a pillar of society, might get a weekend now and then. Women's visitation often has
options in it -- she is not required to do any visitation. Only men get billed for expenses
when they don't use their visitation.
What can a custodial father do ifvisitation by his ex-wife is undesirable and not in
the best interests of the children? Turning to court may be stupid, if the judge involved is
one of those who never looks beyond a person's gender to make a calion a decision
involving discretion. There are remedies beyond court.
Why would a visitation with an ex-wife be bad for children? Perhaps she delights
in condemning her ex-husband to the children, who are not old enough to appreciate that
Mom is simply overcome with her own anger and hatred for her ex-husband. If the
children are depending on their father for their daily needs, it hurts the children to have to
hear the mother tear him apart, tell them he is unreliable and will desert them as he
deserted her, that he is bound to hurt her and they are only helping him by being obedient
to him as she was, that he is making her suffer, that he is lying to them when he says he
loves them, that the only reason he wants to have them with him is to avoid paying child
support to her, or some other of the sickening list of verbal assaults that women use to
degrade their children's father. The children may be simply too impressionable to ignore
what she says, and so each visit to their mother pushes them back further from recovery
from the divorce.
It may be that she is simply crazy, harmless but crazy. She may have paranoiac
fantasies and whisper to the children that their father is going to get them all one day.
How can a child grow up with any semblance of normalcy when he or she has to listen to
nonsense like this? A teenager can appreciate that his mother has a cracked brain, but
young children can not. It is incredibly difficult for a father to overcome his ex-wife's
propaganda against him. He doesn't know exactly what is being said, and the children may
Page 329 Version Date: May ':9.1994 KiDDSNotes

be too stressed out by the divorce to confide in him or else they mig!tt believe their mother
that he cannot be trusted with knowing anything.' .
It may be that she plays favorites, and to have two or more children visit her means
that one of them comes home feeling like dirt. It may be that she doesn't believe in
education as a noble goal, and tells a struggling student not to bother trying too hard. It
may be that she hates the father's girl fiiend or second wife, and makes fun of her in some
despicable way that the children absorb. It may be that she is prejudiced and teaches the
children to be the same. It may be she is a welfare drone and proud of it, teaching her
children each visit that work is for fools. There are simply dozens of reasons why visiting
the mother, falling under her influence and letting her be a role model is bad news for a
child. Of course, it would be almost impossible to document this type of psychological
effect, so expect zero help from the court to protect your children from it.
It could be that she has abused the children and may do it again if she goes back on
drugs or alcohol. It may be that the memories of her abuse in the past are brought to the
surface when the child or children visit. It could even be that the child who was subject to
abuse is depressed, made despondent or hostile, or even pushed to talk of suicide by
visiting his mother. Of course, no matter what documentation you have of this, many
courts will overlook it. It doesn't matter if five witnesses have observed the child directly
after he or she returns from a visitation to be completely upset, distraught, non-responsive
or in any other abnormal mood. Still the court ignores such evidence. It might be
necessary to deposit the corpse of a suicided child on the judge's bench to get her or him
to halt a mother's visitation. Short of that, expect that there will be no help from that
quarter.
What can be done?
If there are any loopholes in the visitation order, they can be exploited. If some
sort of notice is required, learn what is the mandatory form of proof of the notice, by
either consulting law books or a lawyer, and refuse visitation if it is not met. Any
ambiguity can be resolved by yourself as favoring no visitation, and you can deny it. You
may be dragged into court on these ambiguities, but most likely the ambiguity will be
straightened out at no loss to yourself You will appear to the court as a parent who is
discouraging contact by the non-custodial parent, and if you are in no danger of having
custody turned over to your ex-wife, this might be ignored. After all, the court is out to
wreck your life and is indifferent to the psychological needs of your children. What
difference can it make if they have one more reason to harass you? Being a custodial
father is enough to incite them to do their worst. What's left to do to you?
Emergency situations that cause visitation to be denied might be supported. If a
child is sick, you can refuse to allow visitation. If a homework overload occurs, visitation
might be denied. The court can bang on you for putting a child's health or education over
the right of the mother to further attack the child; you probably showed good judgment.
If the children are old enough to begin to appreciate how bad their mother is, they
can simply refuse to go with her. Legally, she would have the right to collar them and
force them to go with her. Practically, this may never happen. You might have to explain
to your children about psychology in order for them to appreciate that visitation is
damaging, and they might not be able to comprehend it or may not believe it if their
mother has indoctrinated them that you lie all the time, and your attempt to make them
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 321

informed visitors might not work; then again, it might. After you have had custody for a
while, and have shown the children love and compassion, they will come to believe in you
rather than in their mother's tirades.
Problems in doing visitation can arise also. You might get home too late to turn
over the children to your ex. The children's baby-sitter might keep them too late. Other
problems can arise with the children. Creativity might be appropriate here. Just be careful
not to violate state law, as men are often hit with charges relating to this. Do not take a
cue from the fact that women from coast to coast get away with denying custody for year
upon year to their children's fathers. Never forget you are not a mother and you're not
apple pie or the American flag either. Expect no relief
Another necessary step is to keep in contact with the evaluator who decided your
ex's visitation schedule. If she gets transferred, contact the replacement. Perhaps the
replacement is not prejudiced in favor of mothers, and you can work out an improvement
in visitation, reducing it to a level more tolerable by your children. Keep in touch with
changes in judges as well. You might find one appointed to the bench who is sensitive to
the needs of children, at least until he gets burned out, and you can see if it is possible to
go back to reduce visitation. '
Other than that, you can ensure that grandparents have visitation as well, perhaps
both pairs, or if a divorce occurredin that generation, three or even four pairs. The more
visitation that they have, the less your ex can have and the easier your children can survive
her harping on your criminal tendencies. How about going off to camp in the summer?
School trips? Sports involvement, scouting, tutoring, club membership and other activities
will both take your child away from a ruinous visitation and help him or her recover from
mother's treatment. Anything that will help your children not be brainwashed by your ex
could be a good idea.
In short, when you are faced with an ex-wife who deliberately sabotages the
children's welfare in ways that the court chooses not to perceive, you have to do whatever
you can to protect your children. If your willpower wilts, just remember that more and
more children kill themselves every year, and allowing yours to be subjected to
psychological battering by a mother who does not see the damage she is doing may lead
them down that terrible path. Do what you can to help them; don't despair if you slip up
some times; just remember that children are resilient and that the help you give may make
the difference that they need to survive years later when these matters form the
subconscious part of their minds. Persevere, love your children, and trust in the future.
Page 322 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
KiDDS Notes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 323

Playing Mom and. Dad

Any man can learn to communicate with his children and give them both the /ove
and the discipline they need. Fear of not being able to deal with children is no reason
to avoid seeking custody, or to do it poorly. Human brains are designed for this task.

In a two parent family, the parents often split up their roles when dealing with
children's problems. The idea is reminiscent of the "bad cop, good cop" roles that are
often portrayed in police-oriented movies. One parent, usually the father, provides the
discipline. He teaches character, honesty, values, and punishes a child when necessary.
Children learn to fear his judgments, even though they may love him tremendously. The
other parent, of course the mother, provides the support and caring. She emotionally
connects with the child and helps him or her to feel that there is always someone there to
defend him, even if he or she is in the wrong. It's a nice arrangement in some ways, .
although it caricaturizes the parents and prevents both of them from feeling, or at least
displaying, the full range of human emotions toward their children. It's simple, traditional,
and easy to understand and follow.
Is it desirable? It perpetuates the myth that the sexes are tremendously different
emotionally and that roles should be sex-linked. It sets up the children with a pattern of
what to expect from the opposite sex that may be so outmoded that the child will have a
hard time adapting to the types of people he or she will come in contact with as an adult.
It shows a sex role that the child may adopt as his or her own, which may limit his or her
responses in situations calling for something different.
A single father does not have to worry about how to deal with these two extremes
of behavior, whether he should oscillate between being disciplinarian or comforter. There
is no need in either one or two parent families for anyone to adopt these roles. A father
can be quite competent at the fathering job without ever imitating either type of parent
that the past half-century featured. A single father, unless he has some mental disability,
can easily listen to a child's sorrows and sympathize, just as he can figure out what to do
when he finds his child being deliberately destructive.
Sometimes there is a transition that occurs. A father who gets custody has to
wake up one day and realize that there isn't anyone else who will give his children what
they need to develop into happy and competent adults. If he doesn't provide comfort and
support to his children, they aren't going to get it. All young children need to be
comforted and those that are not, may not develop normal personality characteristics. A
newly custodial father needs to forget any nonsense he may have stuffed into his head
about sex roles and learn to use his full human potential. Everyone who does not have
mental problems can feel the emotions that are needed to relate to children. They are
inside, part of the mental equipment that we are all born with. Anyone who was loved as
a child can love a child. Anyone who has experienced what sympathy is can bring
themselves to give it.
Children perceive in limited ways. They are not adept at discovering nuances in
adult behavior. They are not sophisticated and have no knowledge about social customs
Page 324 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

when young. This means that adults reacting to them need to display any emotion they
have in an obvious manner, even dramatically, if the child is to appreciate what is
happening. Young children react to facial expression and to tone of voice as much as to
what is said to them. Even younger ones react more to physical contact. A father can
easily provide this form of communication with his children. Fewer and fewer men now
are limited in this regard, and those that are mostly need only to attempt to communicate
with their children in order to be successful. They simply need to leave the modes of
communication that adults use behind. Children are not impressed by eloquence, they are
impressed by sincerity. They don't need complicated logic, they need fairness and
consideration.
No father should think that he is inadequate at being a custodial father because of
his inexperience in communicating with children. The skills are a natural part of our
evolution. They are available to fathers as well as mothers. It does not take much
practice before one becomes an expert in this .. The reason for this is that young children
give plenty of feedback. For example, when distressed, young children don't stop crying
until the communication starts. A father gets to learn very quickly what works and what
doesn't. Child-rearing by trial and error is not a mistake, it is a human capacity that we
should be proud of. One more time, there is no reason for a father to worry about his
ability to provide the range of human communication to his children that they require. Just
do it!
KiDDS Notes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 325

Their Mother's Image

Never use your children as a battleground for your divorce problems. Instead, be
as good a father as possible and as reassuring and positive about their future as you
can be. Children deserve to be shielded from parental disputes as much as possible.

Your ex may have destroyed you economically, embarrassed you socially, lied
about you on the public records of the court, and committed several other new and
creative acts designed to injure and insult you. You naturally have some negative
emotions about her. Keep them to yourself They are not for her children to hear.
Young children identify with their parents. An attack on their mother will be felt
as an attack on themselves. They will have enough problems adjusting to the changes that
divorce brings about without having the burden of questioning the integrity of their
parents. Let them think of their mother in positive terms, at least until they are able to
think clearly about real life, perhaps around age 12.
They do not understand the process of divorce. The world of judges, lawyers and
evaluators does not fit within their experience, and they have no way to relate to it. It is
confusing to them. They need some stable pivots to revolve around, and almost the only
choice of them is the parents. They relate strongly to their parents. They also relate
strongly to the emotions of their parents, and the less chaotic they are, the easier the
adjustment process will be.
There is little to be gained and much to be lost by trying to undermine the feelings
that a child has for either parent. Even if your ex is working hard to make the children
fear you or hate you, do not do the same to her. Let them have a positive image of their
mother. Instead, maintain your image without attacking hers. Work by word and deed to
show them that you care for them. Treat them with tenderness, spend time with them, talk
to them and reassure them that all will be well. Children will simply not believe their
mother if she condemns you when they see with their own eyes and feel with their own
hearts that it is not true. Her actions will only serve to make her appear untrustworthy.
You do not need to tell your children that their mother is lying about you, but only that
their mother is very upset and angry with you and is saying what she did because she is so
angry. Let them know that their mother will get over the anger soon, and life soon will
get better.
Even if you were to be successful in convincing the children that their mother is
sinister, you would not have accomplished anything of use to anyone. The preferences
and beliefs of young children are not much taken into account in making custody
decisions. Working hard to make them prefer you by attacking her is likely to backfire.
Simply treat them well. Your children's mental health is much, much more important than
some phrases that you might teach them to repeat for you. Let them love their mother.
There may be a few courts that have not yet learned that children under the age of
12 do not form credible opinions on their preferences for parental custody. However, the
vast majority that do interview the children do so to find out facts about custody, that is,
Page 326 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

what is the quality of attention and care given. Do a good job at being a father and let the
rest wash out.
Older children are different, but the same rule should still apply. By the time a
child is able to reason and think in an adult manner about adults, he or she is also able to
observe them and form his or her own impressions. There is little need or point to trying
to force-feed negative impressions. What will happen is that instead of remembering that
Mom is a liar they will remember that Dad hates Mom and denigrates her. That is not the
kind of memory that you want your children to have of you.
This does not mean that you should not discuss what is going on between you and
your ex-wife with your children of any age. They may know the actors and locations that
are involved, and you can tell them that the judge is the person who makes decisions, and
court is a place where they are made. Telling a child that his or her future is in the hands
of someone who is not fair or unbiased is not likely to help that child face such a future
with confidence. Let it go. Your children are not your counselors. They are not
substitutes for companions. They are children, and children need reassurance. They are
definitely not in your home to be your moral support, although just having them around
may make you feel good enough to continue the struggle for their future lives.
If an older child asks a question, answer it honestly unless it relates to areas of no
concern to a child, such as finances. You can phrase your answer in a neutral tone when
they relate to your ex-wife. Perhaps you could say something like "Your mother has
forgotten what happened," instead of "She lied again." Work at keeping your negative
feelings about your ex or the court personnel from making worries for your children.
Children going through divorce have enough to worry about without someone deliberately
making their view of the world worse. Let it go. Be strong enough and proud enough not
to stoop to using the minds of little children as a battleground. When they are older, they
will remember you as the parent who was kind and forgiving, not the one who was mean
and vindictive.
Perhaps you will not be able to obtain custody when they are young. When they
reach the age of being able to choose who they want to live with, around 12 to 14 in most
jurisdictions, you want them have the best possible memory of you. Let your home be the
one that was free of hostility, a place where they could escape any sarcasm or belittling
remarks about the other parent.
Another consideration about what to tell your children relates to spying. If you
suspect that your child is being used by your ex to find out information about you, you
may want to let them know that Mom's world and Dad's world are two different places,
and you won't ask them questions about her world. Let them realize by themselves that it
is improper for their mother to ask about yours. Children may volunteer information, such
as "Oh, there's where Mom's bank is!" Even if you use the information to find out some
sequestered accounts, unreported income, hidden assets, etc., do not put the children to
task to remember more. What comes out, comes out. What stays in, let stay in.
Of course, this does not hold if the children are being endangered, subjected to bad
influences such as substance abuse, neglected or abused. Remember that the majority of
child abuse occurs in mother-headed households. In such unfortunate situations you will
have to violate the two worlds rule to find out what is actually happening. This is a most
difficult position to be in. For example, if you notice bruises on a child when the child
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 327

returns from visitation with your ex, you should not extract information about it by
interrogation. You need to ask in a non-threatening way. Don't react by saying you will
call the police and get Mom put in jail for hurting the child, as you will never get any more
information. Best to let a professional handle it, if you can find a competent one, and
check on him or her to make sure he or she does what is necessary.
Rules for this reporting depend on the state. A safe bet is to call some local
psychologists to locate one who specializes in child abuse, and then let him or her advise
you. You may need to call a state agency, or the state could certify psychologists to do
such interviewing. Get expert help. You might want to take a picture of the injury, "for
the doctor," and talk about it sympathetically, but do not dwell on the topic for too long.
If you suspect abuse, it wouldn't hurt to read every book you could find on the topic of
abuse to help you formulate what to do and how to help your children. A little
unobtrusive pocket tape recorder might come in handy if your child gets to talking about
what happens.
A question that will probably arise when your child is around i3 or so is, "What
happened in the divorce?" One way to answer this is to simply save all the paperwork that
is involved. If a child reads the paperwork, and it is certainly not beyond the capability of
a 13 year old to understand most legal filings, he or she can form his own impression of /'
what you did and what your ex-spouse did. Then, if your ex has been misinforming your
child, you won't even have to defend yourself. Let the record of what was done speak for
itself. Let their mother define her own image by what she does.
Another question you might have to face is, "Can I help you win the divorce,
Dad?" If the divorce is going on when your children are teenagers, you might have to
figure that, if they love you and understand that your spouse has put you through hell,
they might volunteer to help. Kids can volunteer to spy on their mother, to mislead her, or
take on other missions even without your ever mentioning the possibility to them. Let
them know that vigilantism is not necessary. Usually just being able to state their
preference for custody in court or to an evaluator should be enough. Just make sure you
let them know you appreciate what they are willing to do.
The bad side of preserving their mother's image in their eyes, while she destroys
yours, is that unless the children have a chance to appreciate what falseness she presents,
they could be swept up with their mother's hostility toward you and develop some of their
own by imitation. If their mother is crazy or paranoid, having to live with her may induce
some of the same in your children. This is especially likely if the prejudice of the courts
prevails and you are even deprived of much contact with your children. It is certainly
possible that a mother could brainwash her children by constant repetition of false
accusations against you. There is little that can be done about this except to continue to
struggle for more contact time. What you can hope for is that at some point in their
development, perhaps around 14 or 15, they will start to question the assumptions of their
youth. With any luck, it will dawn on them that you are merely a victim of calumny, of
falsehoods, of perjury or fraud. If that happens, your efforts at maintaining yourself in the
role of as good a father as the courts will allow you to be will have paid off. It would help
if you mastered the art of patience, as a child who has had to experience brainwashing is
not going to be able to get over it quickly. You will then have a struggle on your hands
Page 328 Version Date: May ~9, 1994 KiDDSNotes

helping your child to recuperate and to get his or her life back on track. Simply resolve
never to give up as long as there is any hope of helping your child.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 329

Maternal Grandparents
I

A custodial father has to decide how to deal with his children's maternal
grandparents. They can be a very positive feature of the children's lives. Some
caution is necessary, both in setting ground rules and in monitoring how the contact
goes.

You are not the only person with a strong interest in your children. There are four
grandparents who have a direct interest in what happens to them. There may be up to
four step-grandparents as well, if you and your ex happen to have been born into families
that don't seem able to handle stable marriages too well. Once you have custody, you
need to decide what relations you want to have with them. Some states give grandparents
a right to visitation with their grandchildren, although few grandparents go to the trouble
of going to court to establish such rights. In most situations, the custodial parent runs the
show.
You probably have already figured out what arrangements you want to make with
your parents for visitation and other events related to your children. Figuring out what to
do with maternal grandparents in another question altogether.
I If your ex is a non-custodial parent with a substantial amount of visitation time,
she may want to sublet some of that time to her parents so that they can visit with the
children as well. If that is not the situation, one delicate question that you need to address
is what you to do about them yourself. For example, your wife has abandoned the -.
children and gone off to Hollywood to get into films; you are left with them full time and
need to wonder what to do about her parents. . .. - . - _. ._. - ..
You need to consider several aspects. First, the grandparents may redard you as
the better parent, or their daughter as a problem child, and be more than happy to maintain
or develop a good relationship with you in order to continue to have contact with their
grandchildren. They may feel that they no longer have a role in their grandchildren's lives,
but would respond favorably to your contacting them. Don't forget that you have parental
authority now, and can break off contact if you ever decide that enough is enough. There
is virtually no risk in your initiating something, and there is certainly something to be
gained.
I The first prize to be gained is some more happiness for your children. If they had a
close relationship with their maternal grandparents before the breakup, they can maintain
that or resume it when the fireworks are over and you have had a chance to get your life
back together. Grandparents give children something quite special that cannot be
duplicated by parents. They give a more mature view of life. They have already reared
- their child or children, and understand, perhaps much better than you do, How children
develop. They can respond to your children with that maturity. Of course. they could be
complete dunces and provide no benefits at all to your children. But that is something that
you can determine.
You may find yourself in a situation where your grandparents are deceased, too
elderly, too distant, or simply uninterested in the children and your in-law grandparents are
Page 330 Version Date: May 29, 1994 .KiDDS Notes

the only ones who are willing and able to playa grandparent role. If you are going to help
your children have a full life, in other words, experience what being a grandchild is like,
you may have no other choices. But tread carefully.
In order to begin the contact, you might have the children, while in your custody,
call the grandparents. It might be on some special occasion, such a holiday or one of the
grandparents' birthdays. It could be to thank them for a gift. It could be a simple call to
say hello. You could start off the telephone call and then turn it over to the children, or, if
they are old enough, let them make the call. This could become a pattern, and if this
works well, either you or the grandparents could bring up the subject of grandparent
visitation. Perhaps taking the children to an event, a sports game, a show, or something
similar might be a good first step. Eventually you may want to allow your children to visit
the grandparents at their home, for example, for a summer vacation. You can make these
decisions based on how the grandparents interact with their grandchildren. Unfortunately,
there is another consideration.
Before anything substantial is done by way of grandparent visitation, you need to
establish some ground rules. Is this going to be an excuse for your ex to drop in? If so,
you probably want to limit the grandparent visitation to one-day stops in your presence,
unless for some reason you are in favor of your ex seeing the children more.
If your in-laws sided with your ex during the divorce, and almost all do, you have
to consider how serious is their continuing connection with your ex before you push
contact with them. Do they frequently contact her and will the children's visits to them
serve as a means for your ex to collect intelligence on all your faults as a parent? If you
cannot establish that there is a safe haven for your children with their grandparents, and
you are not interested in setting yourself up for a resumption of the custody battling, it is
better to have joint visits. You could allow the grandparents to visit with the children in
your home, or go with them to their home, but do not leave them alone.
The other situation can work as well. If the grandparents take to you, they may be
a conduit for information to you to alert you to what your ex is up to, or to help you
understand her past so you can predict her moves in the future. Knowledge is useful, no
matter what its source. The grandparents might be quite happy to provide you with
whatever information you need, if they appreciate that their daughter would make a
miserable custody parent, and that your taking good care of the children without her
intervention is the best thing that could happen to them. You must simply be alert to all
these options. Furthermore, relationships develop with time. It might be a year or two
before you have established good relations with your in-laws; on the other hand, they may
have known all through the marriage that you were the one who was good with children,
the one who was reliable, the one who could take care ofthe children. Perhaps you were
smart enough to think ahead during the marriage and make sure they had the opportunity
to see that.
One other role can be played by grandparents. If your ex has problems, e.g., is
crazy, takes drugs, stays drunk for long periods, or beats up anyone smaller than herself,
she might be given supervised visitation by the court. This means that she can not see her
children alone and has to arrange for someone to be with her when she visits her children.
Grandparents, if they can tolerate her, may be willing to serve as the visitation monitors.
This is probably not a pleasant task for the parent of such a person, but perhaps their
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 331

feelings for her may cause them to volunteer for it. You would want to check that the
situation does not develop into a battle between your ex and her parents, in the presence
of your children. Grandparents unable to handle the presence of a disgraced child should
not volunteer for this task. This is a situation that you will need to continually monitor.
Grandparents with more concern for their child than for their grandchildren might simply
sign up to be visitation monitors and then fail to exert constant supervision. Instead, they
simply allow the children's mother full control of them during their supposed supervision
time. In this case, you need to collect data on their subterfuge, and then go back to court
to have them removed as monitors.
Page 332.· Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes
IGDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 333

Sitting With the Mothers

A custodis! f:lther might often wonder why so few men show up to tsk« psrt in
their children's activities, sports excepted. It may be because of the hypnotic effect of
television, possibly the worst disaster that ever h:lppened to children.

When you become a single father, especially one with full custody rather than-joint,
you are going to spend a lot of time with women. It is a fact of our society that women
still provide the large amount of time for children's care and children's activities. When
you take your son to his baseball games and stay to watch and cheer, you will be
surrounded by mothers. A few fathers will show up, weekends mostly. When you go to
the parent-teacher meetings at your daughter's school, it will be mostly moms there to talk
to the teachers. The fathers there mainly come as half of a couple. Very soon you will
realize how unusual it is for a father to have custody; .
As a rare bird, you can expect to stand out. The almost invariable reaction is
curiosity, never hostility. You may find yourself regarded, by particularly sexist women,
as necessarily incompetent as the simple skills of child care, such as repairing clothes and
preparing meals. You may also get wads of offers of help, especially from single mothers.
This wears offas you become part of the scenery. "There's the single father." Until more
men are given the opportunity to rear their children, the main emotion that youmight feel
could be isolation.
Alternately, it could be uneasiness. Why are women the ones who are taking
responsibility for the education of the next generation? Where are the fathers? Why are
women the ones who support their children's activities with their own time, effort and
ideas? The answer doesn't take an anthropologist. We live in a culture where children
have become devalued by many men.
This is afar cry from the situation that has prevailed in past times. Allover the
world and all throughout history, wars have been fought, with deaths in the thousands,
just to keep a throne for a king's sons. The goal of the nobility would be to accumulate
lands and titles, which would be passed on to their eldest son, who would be groomed to
take his father's place. Queens would be dismissed for lack of an heir. Dynasties and
other hereditary orders were the desired result of revolutions. Although history speaks
less about the remainder of the social classes, it might be assumed that they followed the
same theme as the nobility: work to establish a birthright for their children. Parents
assumed a large role in finding a suitable spouse for their children, unlike today where it is
often left to chance meetings. Life could be said to have been focused on the next
generation.
All of a sudden, during the last half century or perhaps the last twenty-five years,
children have become less important. Some people just decide not to have any. Some
parents just decide to take off and leave their children to their spouse. Some fathers
simply abdicate their roles in rearing their children, even in an intact marriage. Does this
make any sense at all?
 Page 334 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

When you are sitting there at the PTA meeting surrounded by mothers, where are
all the fathers? It would be nice to think that they are home, taking care of the children
because they prefer close contact with their children to attending yet another meeting.
Perhaps so, but more likely they are sitting home, trying to bring their families' total TV
time up to the national standard. Isn't it true that the decline in attention to children came
about at the same time as the entertainment explosion that radio and especially TV
. provided?
Before TV was invented, there were still twenty-four hours in the day. The
amount of time devoted to sleeping, working, and eating had not changed very much
among the majority of people since centuries past. A little-more time has been made
available by the reduction in average hours worked over the last few decades, but
commuting has taken its toll out of that saving. Housework time has also gone down as
more and cleverer appliances have taken over the homes of America, but the flow of
. women into the workplace more than compensates for that. The time that goes into
television watching had to come from somewhere. What 'gave?Child time gave. Instead
of interacting, parents and children both put in a quota of television. Now, video games
and home computer use add to the time spent separately by members of the family. Some
of the fathers who don't show up to sit with the moms are simply not used to dealing with
their children. They are used to dealing with a TV remote.
1£ after you have used up a horsepower of energy being a single father, you have
some left, consider using it to be an example, a provocative example to non-single fathers
who can't seem to orient themselves to their children. When you are sitting with their
wives,' suggest to the wives that they bring their husbands next time. Accept no excuses.
Your life is a testimony to the fact that fathers can be-involved. Send home the message
and help your children's friends have more involved fathers. Have the moms tell their
husbands they can bring the TV remote with them like a security blanket when they come
to the next meeting.
KiDDSNotes V~ionDate:May29.1994 Page 335

Good Example

Just being a loving, caring single father provides many good examples to children.
It is not necessary to ~orry about the little habits of life, if the big ones, of caring for
. others, of sacrifice, and of perseverance are there for children to see.

Sometimes old sayings have an important core of truth that is valid for all eras.
One of these is "Do as I do, not as I say." Of course it means that children will follow
your example, rather than listening to you and behaving according to your suggestions,
recommendations and commands. Science understands a little bit more nowadays about
why that happens, in terms of how the human brain functions. The old saw is in.
agreement with what is known, as it should be. These old sayings evolved over centuries
to embody what was known about life. If it was wrong, it would have disappeared: The
only problem lies in interpreting it.
In a one-parent household, it is even more important that the parent recognize that
his habits, good or bad, are going to be observed daily and copied. "Like father, like son."
is another of these old sayings. It means simply that, in older times when sex roles were
distinct, sons copied their father's example - he was there, giving it day after day.
Daughters copied their mothers. In a modem single father household, the father has to
give good example to both daughters and sons. Because there is no second parent
around, it is even more important for a father who wants to give his children a good future
to be a good example. This is of course one more reason to keep the marriage together if
both of the partners are good parents and only differ about their own relationship. And it
is one more reason for a single father to live with relatives, brother or sister or parents, to
gain help in rearing his children. They can provide a wider range of good examples, and
also serve to help the single father appreciate what habits he is giving to his children.
Unfortunately, we cannot change habits like clothing. For example, someone who
has bad manners in eating has to work hard to change them. You cannot simply read an
Ann Lander's column and during the next meal eat like an English gentleman. Changing
habits takes concentration. To change meal-time manners, you have to concentrate for
weeks or months on remembering the change and thinking about doing it. Forgetting it
after a few days, as we all tend to do, means that no change happens. It also means that
your children see you unable to do anything about your inability to have good manners.
One bad example turns into two.
Because it takes concentration and is likely to fail if enough attention is not given
to it, it may be better to save habit-changing until all the monstrous stresses of the divorce
battle are over, and that source of distraction is not around. Then it might also be a good
idea to only do one or two at a time. Maybe eating with good manners is enough for a
half year, at which time you can think about changing something else. Of course,
meanwhile, the countless bad examples you have are being picked up by your children.
There clearly isn't much you can do about this.
One negative impression you certainly don't want to form is of your own ability to
be a custodial father. If you have the basic ingredients of good fathering, love and care for
Page 336 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

your children, it probably won't make too much difference in the long run whether you
change all your bad habits. Being a good, loving, caring father is by far the most
important part of fathering that you can do, and is by far the most important example you
give to your children. If they grow up in an atmosphere where they are cared for, given
the attention they need, and allowed to know how much they are loved, you can feel
happy that they will probably take that on to the next generation with them. Rearing
children to be good parents in this crazy world of ours is a major accomplishment, and one
that any single father can be tremendously proud of If they lick their fingers, so what.
Instead of thinking of it as a bad example, think of it as a family idiosyncrasy. They can
change that habit themselves when they are older.
There are some other examples that you give by just being a good father. Most
likely, you had to persevere to gain custody. Perseverance in seeking important goals is
one of the most important character traits that you can give a child. If they appreciate
how to continue to struggle, even though society is prejudiced against them, they will have
strength of character that can come into use many times in their lives. You are not giving
up when difficulties arise in caring for them. Being a single parent is almost a guarantee of
difficult times -- and when you get through them, your children will appreciate what it
takes to keep going in the face of problems and obstacles.
Another important example single fathers give is sacrifice. A single father does not
have the time that bachelors have to enjoy themselves. He doesn't have the time that dual
parents do. Sacrificing your entertainment for an important goal, like rearing your
.children, shows your children how they should behave. When they have something they
want to work for, they won't be so ready to give it short shrift and spend their time having
fun instead of working on it. You have given them that.
Another one is setting goals. You most likely chose to be a single father, and
knowing what to do with your life is also a crucial skill that your children will benefit
from. Too many people wander through life, never figuring out what is important and
what is dross, never deciding where to go or what to do and only following whatever
seems an easy path. Setting a goal and working to fulfill it, as single fathers do, leaves
their children with an advantage that children from other situations may not have.
So there is every reason to feel good about how you are being an example to your
children. There is no reason to feel self-critical because there are some undesirable habits
you have that your children may pick up. If you have some stamina left over, you can
work on changing them, one or two at a time. The action of trying to improve yourself is
yet another important example you show your children.
One last point: by the time your children are old enough to reason, somewhere
between eleven and fourteen, you can start to talk to them about what things about
yourself you would change if you could. Being a single father gives you much more
contact with your children than most fathers has, and if you are lucky, you will have good
communication with them. They will listen to you. You can start them out on their own
odyssey of changing themselves to improve their habits. This is just one more way in
which you benefit them by what you do.
 KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 337

Budgeting Time

A new custodial father has to figure out how to manage time better than he ever
had to before. Some hints for planning time and money together are listed here.

Being a good parent in a two-earner household takes a lot of time; children

prosper when they receive a lot of their parents' time. A good parent recognizes this and
devotes the attention that they need. Most of the time, it's one of the most enjoyable ways
that a humane person can spend his time.
As a single custodial father, time demands have to be twice as great. There is an
. overwhelming need to budget time. Work that was done by two is now done by one.
Furthermore, there are other demands that make matters more difficult. Finances
may be more tight, either from the expenses of divorce and the wanton wasting of assets
that occurs there, or from career sacrifices that are necessary to enable the father to spend
adequate time with his children. Child care costs may be larger, as there are no longer two
parents to juggle schedules to reduce the amount of time that the children have to be cared
for by professionals. These monetary pressures translate into time pressures. First, the
shortage of money may necessitate that the father does some of the tasks that he formerly
had done for him. For example, a father who dotes on a clean car may have to forego the
detailing service he used to use and spend time each weekend doing it himself Eating out
may have to be curtailed, which means more shopping, cooking and cleaning time.
Shopping may no longer be as simple as it was before, because finances may only be up to
buying what is on sale. Alternately, your maid, butler, chauffeur and chef may have to be
given two weeks notice.
These changes may have to come quickly as finances are choked up by the court.
You may find your credit disappearing. Other changes can hit you at the same time. This
means that you should be thinking through some new plans to help you get through a
difficult time. Simply muddling through may not be a very good solution. Since time is
money, it is imperative that a single father in a tough situation think out his plans for both
at once. Otherwise, saving money by doing things himself may seem a great solution
when he is doing his financial budget. But when he checks his schedule, there isn't enough
time in the week to do it all. Some better planning is needed.
The first step in any planning, as any book on the subject will tell you, is setting
priorities. Some books tell you that this is simply deciding what are the most important
things that have to be done. Single parenting isn't like that. There's too much to do. If
you could divide up the things that you would like to do into separate pieces, you might
attach an importance to each, say 1(very important -- crucial) to 5 (it might be nice to do
this some day), and then decide how to work on the most important ones first and only do
the lower ranked ones if you find yourself with leisure. But this simple method of
prioritizing doesn't work very well in satisfying children's needs.
Of course, there are some things that command top ranking in any scheme of
priorities. Keeping a source of income is one. Keeping your children safe is another.
Keeping your children secure, i.e., well-fed, well-housed, well-clothed and hygienic, is
Page 338 Version I?ate: May 29> 1994 , KiDDS Notes"

another. Your children's education is high priority. Keeping your source of transportation
available is another -- i.e., car maintenance: However, the standards that you set do not
have to be the ones that you were able to set before the divorce disaster hit. For example,
while you have to provide shelter, i.e., housing, for your children, it is not as high a
priority to keep them living in as expensive or spacious a situation as before. Having a
roof over their heads is top priority, but living in a house rather than an apartment has to
be lower in priority. It is the children that are important, not luxury or comfort or status in
the community that matters.
When making these priorities, there may be special situations that only apply to
your own situation. Perhaps there are no available and suitable apartments within the area
you live in. Then keeping them in a house is top priority, and whatever has to be done for
that is top priority as well. Perhaps moving to an area where apartments are available puts'
you outside the area where child care is available -- again, staying in a house is top
priority. Usually these situations do 'not arise, but if they do you need to think out what
each of them means and adjust your planning.
One way to think about priorities is to set two or three or even more levels for
satisfying each of the children's needs. You can list the various children's needs in a chart
like the one shown here and fill in the columns according to your economic status and
preferences:

Need Levell Level 2 Level 3

Shelter Public shelter Apartment House
Food Soup kitchen Minimal food Eat out occasionally
budget
Education Public school Extra books and Home computer
supplies
Clothing Discount store Children's store Department store
specials
Entertainment Hikes with Dad Videos and movies Amusement parks
and vacations
Whatever

Chart for setting priorities and levels of satisfaction

These relate to financial requirements more than time scheduling. You can list
what each of the needs on level 1 (or wherever you are) will cost, on a monthly basis. If
you have other requirements, like your own clothes, your car payment, and all these
necessities that don't directly relate to children, they need to be added in. Then you can
see where you can jump up to the next level; or else figure out how much saving you can
do.
Time scheduling comes next. You can put together a weekly schedule of what you
need to do. Always add 25% or more for contingencies that you haven't thought of --
Murphy's law still works for custodial fathers. After your work time or time at the
 KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 339

. unemployment or welfare office standing in line, house/apartment/shelter maintenance

time, sleeping and the other survival necessities are added up, you can estimate how much
time each of the above activities is going to take. If you get to more than 168 hours per
week, you are in trouble. This may mean you are at too high a savings level; you will have
to spend more to save time. Eat take-out food instead of cooking for yourself if your
palate can stand it. Once you make the financial adjustments, then you can go back to
your time scheduling and see if it works.
Never plan to the limit. Life needs slack in order to be livable. It is much better to
live at a lower level than to press yourself too hard. Don't forget what are the real
priorities in life: your children. They may want to have designer jeans because their peers
in school have them or because they see them on TV (You didn't get rid of that yet?), but
what they really need is a father who has time for them. What they will really benefit from
is a role model who puts their human needs ahead of his OMI material ones.
Page 340 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 341

Child Care

A major headache for custodial fathers is child care, which is very diverse in
America. Here a description of the major categories is listed, along with some tips for
evaluating them.

One topic that a new custodial father has to face immediately is child care. The
problems are finding a suitable source or selecting one of the available possibilities, and
paying for it.
The best solution, from the standpoint of the child's welfare and stability during the
divorce and afterward, is for the father to do it himself Usually that's impossible ifhe
works, so that.a father would have to go on welfare or unemployment, or, if he lives in a
place with a disappearing Cheshire cat and rabbits who talk, live on child support and
spousal support from a well-paid ex-wife. Most men would not contemplate such options
if any other satisfactory solution were available, although if there is simply no child care or
if a child needs special care, it may be the only solution. It is an immediate solution if the
father is unemployed until his job situation changes, except that he has to have some care
available for job searches, and some plan for child care should he find work.
The next best solution is to have a relative do it. Often a relative will volunteer to
do the care for free, because in some pleasant families, relatives stick together and help
each other. Often a father doesn't have any relatives close enough to do this. Next is a
close friend, perhaps someone who takes care of his or her own child or children. Ifhe
doesn'thave that option either, it's time to check out situations where he has to pay for
child care.
In some areas there are students or other people who will come to a home and
take care of children, often for a very reasonable hourly rate. Two or more single parents
can get together to share such a person. Some of the people who do this are complete
geniuses with children. They have their own supply of toys and games, and possess a
repertoire of activities that keep children active. This type of situation is best for very
young children, from babies up to preschool toddlers. The very personal contact that such
a caregiver provides can go a long way toward filling in the hole in a child's life formed by
the mother's exit. Often the child and the caregiver form very close bonds. Obviously it
takes a special person to be able to relate to such young children as a career, and anyone
who finds someone like this tends to keep his or her availability confidential, to avoid them
being hired away. With very young children, naps are a must and the caregiver has a
sizable amount oftime available to study or do other work. It is amazing that some of
these people even do dishes and cleaning when the children are asleep or otherwise
occupied.
The obvious ultimate of personal child care is the au pair arrangement. There are a
number of agencies that specialize in placing young people in homes for the purpose of
providing child care. They usually have to be given their own room, access to telephone,
car, and other services, and a salary. Many are foreigners, who come for a year or two to
learn English, visit America, and earn something for their own purposes when they return,
 ;Versio~Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

There are also professional nannies, who command a sizable salary, who also live in.
There are placement services for such people.
Without an au pair or nanny situation being possible, which are financially difficult
for almost everyone in the middle class, some other situation is called for. Many people
do child care in their homes, taking in children of various ages on a daily basis, with up to
10 or 12 in a home. This type of service is regulated by most states, but there seems to be
quite a bit of informal home child care available. If the person specializes in babies, the
limit that a person might care for is probably 3 or 4. Babies need to be held frequently,
and simply do not grow mentally in the proper way if they are left in their crib for long
periods. Toddlers are a different category. They interact with each other, 'and-one person
can deal with a few more at one time. Older children are not much easier to care for, and
if the caregiver wants to expand her service, she often has an associate in the house to help
her.
The routine for this type of service is that full child care is available from early
morning to evening, and the parent is responsible for delivery and pickup within those
hours. The parent may bring the children's favorite toys, changes of clothing, diapers if
needed, special foods or medicine and coats for outside activity, and then leaves .
everything to the care giver.
The next more organized service is the professional day care facility. There are
many independent facilities as well as several nationwide chains. They operate the same
way as the home caregiver, but have large facilities and multiple people involved. Quite
expectedly, there is less possibility for a child to make a personal long-lasting connection
with a particular person. Personnel tend to rotate in and out of these services rapidly, as
the pay is minimal. Meals are provided for the children at many centers, and the children
eat (and play) in age groups. Some of these facilities have vans to pick up younger school
children after school for supervised play until the parents return from work. Some also
take children before school and deliver them. Some have nurseries where infants are cared
for. Others demand that the child be toilet-trained before they will enroll him or her. Each
service sets its own rules.
Locating a selection of services is not difficult. Newspaper advertisements and
yellow page ads are used by the larger services. Often home caregivers only advertise in
referral services, run either independently with grants from some government agency or by
the state or city itself Top-quality home caregivers are often in such demand that they
have waiting lists, and never bother to advertise. Parents have even been known to
reserve places for their baby as soon as it is conceived. Clearly a new custodial father is at
disadvantage here, as he may have no network whatsoever to help him locate such good
facilities. One task that an active men's rights organization could do to promote father's
rights is to assist their members in this regard.
Paying for these services is the next problem. A newly minted single custodial
father can be expected to be flat in the wallet, if he has been victimized by the courts as
most men are. However, virtually all these services require payment in advance. There is
no credit usually available from child care agencies, and a father should expect none. The
services are not great money-making opportunities, and the people involved are often
there, not for the money, but because they love children and want a situation where they
KIDDSNotes V~ion Date: May 29. 1994 Page 343

can be with them and assist them. They deserve all the help they can get and as little
problems about payment as possible. '
Chiid care is not a special cost for the courts to assist with. It is part of the total
bundle of expenses that are covered by child support. Since you probably didn't get any
child support from your ex-wife, you can't go back to ask for more because of child care
expenses. What you have to do is minimize your other expenses to take care of this as
much as possible, and plan on slowly sinking into debt for the years that your children
need such care, recovering when they reach school age.
Your costs should go down when your children enter school. In America, schools
do not provide a full day of care, although almost all of the other industrial countries do.
In fact, most countries provide care from infancy to school graduation, but we don't here.
So we have to make do. A father needs to figure out how much money he needs to pay
for child care, and where to get it. Loans are available, but unsecured ones are most
difficult. If you werelucky enough to keep your home, an equity loan might be possible.
There are finance companies that will loan money on the basis of a car, so if you got a car
in the settlement, and it is in your name, you can possibly get a loan secured by that alone.
Or you could sell it for cash and buy something less expensive. Loans from relatives are
also an option. It is somewhat easier to approach a relative or friend on a temporary basis,
i.e., until the children reach school age, than for an unspecified time. Some employers
have loan funds to help out employees in dire need.
Obviously you may need to cut down on child care expenses as soon as possible if
you are having trouble matching expenses and income. If nothing else works, you can go
on welfare and take care of the children yourself. Otherwise, you need to include in your
plans a cutoff time. Often kindergarten classes are only half day, so that day care cannot
be cut off when a child reaches that age. The American institution of latch-key children
certainly does not extend to children much below the age of eight, if that young. Eight-
year-olds are in third grade, so that day care is required up to that time or later. Often a
neighbor might be able to do after school watching, which will help with younger children.
Sometimes older siblings can care for younger ones. Some schools have graded
lengths of school days, with children in some grades, e.g., first through third, attending
school an hour less than children in the next grades, with another extension occurring
around grade five, six or seven. This gradation in school day length means that there may
be a period of a half hour to an hour where a younger child is home alone, and then he will
be joined by an older one who can take charge.
It is absolutely necessary to teach children how to be latchkey children. Books
exist listing what is expected from such a situation, and they could be consulted for the
purpose of training your child or children to be as self-reliant as possible. One other
option is a fill-in baby-sitter. If school gets out early one day a week, you might want to
have an older student, a college student, or a retired person baby-sit a few hours to relieve
the child of so much time alone.
In short, because of the variety of options available in this country for day care,
and the lack of any organized system of care, or of regulation for that matter, a custodial
father can expect to spend much of his time making arrangements for child care, finding
some, checking it out and then figuring out the next stage when the children are older. It
Page 344 Version. Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
'•. " t·.... .~ .~ .•., ,'/' .." .

is no picnic, but it is certainly a doable task. ..Once more, the more money you save in the
divorce, the easier it will be. ..
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 345

The Role Model Job

Next to providing necessities of life and love and caring, the most important task a
custodial father can do for his children is to provide them with good role models. Here
are some guidelines.

No one would dispute that providing the necessities of life, such as food, safety,
and shelter, is the most important job that a custodial parent must do. There should not be
much dispute about what is the second most important job: Providing the emotional
support necessary for children to develop healthy personalities and self-esteem
overwhelms the importance of other tasks. Without that support, children c~ not face
adult life with much chance of being successful or even happy. But once a father has fed
them and has given them the love and attention that children need, his job is not over.
Children need to be taught how to live, and what to live for. "They need values.
is
Children learn primarily by imitation. "This especially true of younger children,
under the age of 12 or so, who have not yet developed strong reasoning powers. They
copy the examples of adults they see or hear about. "Often one or two adults play an
especially important role in setting examples for the child to follow. These adults, the
child's role models, provide a different type of example than other adults in the child's life.
They show values.
An adult does not become a role model because he teaches the simple routines of
life to a child, such as eating with good manners or how to repair household appliances.
The role model is someone who is the child's example on how to live his or her life. The
role model gives the example of how to treat other people, of how to set goals for life and
how to achieve them, of the importance of education and training, of the utility of
traditional virtues such as honesty and the pitfalls of traditional vices such as greed, and of
other areas where the child has to make decisions that greatly affect his or her life.
A single custodial father is the most likely candidate for his children's role model.
He spends the most time with the children, teaches them the most, disciplines them the
most, provides for them the most, and essentially is wholly in charge of their lives. The
younger the child, the larger his father will loom in his life. This is considerably more
responsibility than a father in a dual parent family has.
In a dual parent family, the child has two examples to choose from and to pick the
best from. With luck, the child can grow up imitating the best of both parents. But a child
in a single father family has no such opportunity, especially in situations where the mother
has disappeared or plays little role in the child's life. The father therefore has the
responsibility for determining, as his children's role model, how his own behavior,
preferences and values are transmitted to his children. He has a secondary responsibility,
as custodial parent or even simply as a father, to influence who else appears as a role
model to his children.
Being a good example is not enough. There are two ways in which a child can
react to a role model, even one that is a paragon of virtue. The child can take the role
model as an example to imitate, or as one to reject. In the first case, the child patterns his
Page 346 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes

behavior after the role model, and in the second, the child attempts to do the opposite in
some way. A neat parent may rear a child who is similarly neat, or one who is a complete
slob. A messy father can rear a child who is neat in reaction to his father's example, or one
who is similarly messy.
The child may choose certain aspects of his role model to imitate, and others to
reject, although a uniform imitation or rejection may be more common. The child's
choices may be a little different from how the father may see himself. Some habits and
persuasions that he has, he may not want his children to imitate. Others he may see as
crucial for their development. The difficulty is that his children may not make the same
selection as he does. Very little psychological studies have been done on the question of
role modeling, either how it works, or how to affect it. One might guess that those traits
that are emphasized or praised by others in the father would be more likely to be picked
up by his children. Another influence on the .child's selection is the selection that the father
regards as important to emphasize in his own teaching of the children. If the neat father
joins with his children in cleaning and organizing their house, the children are more likely
to follow his example. Ifhe does the cleaning and organizing himself. they may be less
likely to copy this behavior, and choose to imitate or reject that aspect of his example.
The father's own opinions are also an influence. If a father smokes, but tells his children
he despises it and wishes he could stop, he may be influencing them to smoke or not. He
may also be giving the example of someone who is not in controlof his own life, which is
a more pervasive example and is a possibly much worse trait than simply smoking. It may
be much less damaging to not emphasize a failed struggle to quit smoking than to simply
smoke in as unobtrusive a fashion as possible.
The second job a custodial father has relative to role models may be as important
as the first, especially with older children who are more directly engaged in setting up their
life patterns. A father should do what he can to see that the other role models that a child
sees the most of should be imparting good characteristics to his child, not detrimental
ones.
This brings up television. The average American child spends four to five hours
daily watching it. It is hard to see how that could not serve as even more role-modeling
influence than the father himself. The undesirable imitable persons on the television range
from buffoons to homicidal maniacs. What can a father do about this? Because television
has almost no redeeming good features, getting rid of it would seem to be the best bet to
control its effect. A few people have said that television is an educational influence on
children. It certainly is, but the education that it provides can be toward mostly bad
habits.
There have been many studies that have shown that single parent families produce
a much higher percentage of children who become criminals than do intact dual parent
families. [Stepparent families seem to be worse in some studies.] Criminal behavior is
certainly a result of the role model that the child accepts. Almost all of these single parent
families are fatherless ones, and very many of the young criminals were boys without a
father's influence. They were ones who searched for another role model, and found it
somewhere else, perhaps from the ever-present violent examples on television and in
movies and videos. A custodial father is certainly well ahead of this problem, just by being
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 347

custodial rather than absent, but there seems to be little reason not to take the extra step
of removing the undesirable influence of television from his child's life.
Other adults or even older children can also serve as role models for a child. This
happens with older children rather than with younger ones, where the adults in a child's life
are most influential. A father can make a selection of which teachers and other adults
appear in a young child's life. This control slips away with older children, who play with
others of their own choosing. If a child spends much time with children who are
substantially older than he is, a father should take time to appreciate what kind of
examples they are. Sometimes there is little choice, because of the location of his house
and the availability of other children nearby. In such situations, communication with the
child is essential, in commenting on the behavior that a child might imitate from others.
Of course, a non-custodial mother also might be used by the child as a role model
ifthere is some contact. For the child's sake, in discussing his or her mother, emphasize
the positive, good qualities she has as these may be ones that the child tries to imitate.
Attacking a child's mother has many bad effects, and not the least of them is that the child
may decide to imitate those traits that a father emphasizes and repeats. No father should
inadvertently create an imitation of the woman he divorced.
Lastly, adult examples do not have to be only from those adults the child has
contact with. A child who is read to or who is told stories by his father has another rich
lode of examples to pattern himself or herself after. Successful relatives can serve as one
source of examples for a father to portray. Historical figures such as Edison or
Washington can serve as others. Even the heroes and heroines of fairy tales can playa
part in teaching a child how to pattern his or her life.
The best role models might be those who exemplify the traits that help a child be
successful in life. Examples of people who work hard, who persevere in accomplishing
their chosen goals, who value others as well as themselves, who seek ways of solving
problems instead of surrendering to fate, who live lives untainted by excessive self-
indulgence, and whose lives are of major benefit to society would be the obvious choices.
It is probably not necessary to be realistic, i.e., to concentrate on the character flaws of
chosen role models. A child hears enough about how to fail in our society already. If a
father paints a picture of a person as an ideal, especially with younger, less sophisticated
children, he is probably doing better for his child than to balance the person's good
features with his bad ones.
Unfortunately, there is no certain prescription for the task of helping a child choose
role models, even though it is of critical importance in a child's life. We are forced to just
do the best we can.
Page 348 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes
KllDSNotes V~ion Date:May 29.1994 Page 349

Doing a Remarriage
Page 350 yersion Date: May29,199,4 KiDDSNotes
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 351

Another of the Same,·· Please!

Divorce usually means a mistake was made in understanding the person you
married. To avoid making a second mistake. a lot of time needs to be spent probing
the personality of any prospective spouse.

Some divorces occur because one of the partners changes; matures, breaks out of
some restriction, or learns something about the world that means their partner is not what
they wanted. Some divorces occur because a third party shows up and sweeps away a
spouse. But many divorces occur because one or both of the people involved just did not
understand whom they were marrying. When they found out, they hoped that it wasn't
true and then when they realized it was, they had to get out.
To be clear about it, many divorces come from a man not knowing the woman he
takes up with. He knows her name (probably), her biographical statistics (perhaps), but
what she wants out of life, what she is willing to do or is capable of doing, what emotions
lie behind the courtship mask that couples put on, how reliable she really is, and countless
other points, he may not know. Instead, a new husband often fills in missing information
by assuming the best. In short, he optimistically blunders into a marriage in ignorance. He
pays for it by having to go through a divorce, and his children pay for their fathers mistake
as well. He may wind up paying through the nose because he was dumb enough to be
taken by a woman. It happens millions of times -- literature seems to be full of these
cases, as is history.
Making a mistake is bad enough, but not learning from it is worse. Some men
simply repeat their error with a second woman. They go about the same process of
looking for a wife they did the first time, and use the same criteria in choosing one. To no
one's surprise but their own, they find they have to repeat the divorce again as well. And
their children have to endure a second divorce and a second round of financial deprivation
at the hands of the divorce vultures.
Selecting a wife is an incredibly personal choice. She may have to have some
physical characteristics, or that could be unimportant. She might have to have some
attributes, for example, a certain education or a lack of it, before she is interesting to him.
She might have to have some personality characteristics. Perhaps she has to have a
temper. Perhaps she has to be silent and uncommunicative. Perhaps she has to be
unreliable. Perhaps she has to be sneaky, get caught and be submissive in seeking
forgiveness. It could be almost anything that resonates with the psychological quirks in
the man's brain.
No one understands how these quirks come about. Some men seek women
reminiscent of their mothers or sisters. Some men seek the opposite. Some men wanta
wife who puts them in certain roles, like a little boy or like a father or like a savior or like
a hero or like a tyrant. Others want their wives to play roles such as seductress or
princess. During courtship some women seem to intuitively understand the role or
characteristics that their prospective mate wants and adjust their behavior to accommodate
them. They mold themselves to fit the pattern that the foolish man is seeking. Then, when
Page 352 Version D,ate: May 29. 1994 KiDDSNotes

the marriage has endured a few months or a few years, the facade grows tiresome and is
dropped. Suddenly the man is without the person he married; he is living with someone
else, someone who is behaving more truthfully than before, and more like herself Perhaps
he can't even stand the change, or can't respond to it in a mature way. Trouble brews in
the marriage, and it ruptures.
All this comes about, in a second marriage, because the man did not use the
wretched experience of divorce to figure out what was wrong with his manner of selecting
a wife. Perhaps he did modify it somewhat, but the old habits overcame his hoped-for
changes. He married another of the same.
The solution for this is clearly to put logic in place of emotion in figuring out who
to marry. Emotion must playa strong role in a marriage, as a marriage without passion
can be a dull and unsustainable creation. But if logic plays no role in selecting a wife, a
man deserves what he gets.
Logic enters when a man decides that he has to first understand what it is that he
wants in a marriage partner. He needs to realistically think through what he wants -
especially ifhe didn't do this in the first marriage. He needs to be able to understand what
is phony and courtship-related in each woman he seriously thinks about. He needs to be
able to understand people a bit better to understand female bridal candidates and he needs
to be able to understand himself. Reading about human psychology can be quite a
revelation for someone who has had no contact with it. Realizing how the mind works,
how simple falseness is and why people do it, and realizing what is needed to make a
marriage work, can all be gleaned from books and articles written about human
psychology. The non-reader can seek help on aface to face basis. Perhaps he has a friend
who has been talking to him for years and who he has been ignoring for years. "Time to
.listen before you leap again, friend." Seeking professional help is a possibility. If he went
to a counselor to help him get through the pain of the divorce, or to help him with caring
for his children in their own divorce-related traumas, he might be able to extend the
counseling to help him understand who it is that he is seeking as a partner. He may get a
recommendation to someone more specialized in inter-personal relationships rather than
pediatric psychology.
No matter what help he gets, he needs to go through some process of self-
understanding before starting over in a new marriage. It may be that the process that led
to his marriage had nothing to do with bugs in his selection program, but was related to
something completely outside that. But it might also be that he simply did not think of a
certain aspect of the marriage before he married the first time.
As an example, suppose a man is hit with divorce after he runs into severe financial
problems. One way to describe this is to say that he never expected to have the financial
problems he did, and it was a chance event that led to them and to his divorce. He might
say that the financial stresses put so much strain on the marriage that it had to give way.
Another way of saying it is that he chose a woman who was going to depend on him to
keep the money coming in and when it didn't, she was gone. Did he know this? It
shouldn't have been terribly hard to recognize someone as a dependent wife with a love for
money or a fear of financial insecurity. Did he talk to her enough to understand this
aspect of her personality? Maybe he didn't because he felt that finances could never head .
south for him -- that he was so successful and so talented that he would always be on top
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 353

of a money fountain. Arrogance about his own abilities or undeserved optimism about the
economic climate could have been his undoing. The only recourse before his second
marriage is to humbly accept that rotten turns of events happen, and that he should know
if he is going to be hit with a divorce if he stumbles financially a second time. If he is so
unsure of his prospective mate that he is afraid.to discuss this, he is clearly not ready for
the relationship and perhaps the woman is not right for him. Once should be enough for
any major calamity that is caused by himself and his own poor understandings.
There are a few issues that should be discussed before the marriage, in detail and
with full frankness. What would the partners do in case of an unexpected event: financial
problems, health problems or disability, an unwanted pregnancy, infertility, problems from
prior marriages or with first-marriage children? What do they expect about financial
sharing? What do they expect about relationship roles -- who washes the dishes or do
they always eat out?
It does- no good if the prospective spouse is more interested in getting married than
in having a good marriage. Some women, perhaps a sizable fraction, look only at the
ignominy of not being married and feel that any marriage is better than eternal singleness.
They are not long-term thinkers. A man should be able to recognize if his mate is more
concerned with the wedding ceremony than with what the marriage will be like. If he
understands it, he can deal with it. He will have to spend more time probing the person
who is out bridal gown shopping instead of discussing what they will do together to make
the marriage work. Otherwise he is simply gambling on good luck. Someone who has
had a history of good luck might make this mistake. But the victim of divorce should
never consider himself charmed with luck. He needs to know, not to risk everything a
second time. At least he should plan on making a completely different mistake the second
time around. That leaves some self-respect. I .
Page 354 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
IGDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 355

Protecting Your Children in

Remarriage

The most important point for a custodial father to check when courting a new
wife is to determine if she will be abusive to his children. If he makes a mistake, there
has to be a second divorce, as children can not be sacrificed for any purpose.

We all grew up with the Snow White story, where the heroine's stepmother grows
jealous of her and arranges for her to be taken out into the forest to be killed; failing that,
she tries to poison her stepdaughter. Hansel's and Gretel's stepmother causes them to be
lost in the forest 'when food gets scarce. Cinderella's stepmother keeps her stepdaughter
as a servant while catering to her daughters' pleasures. Rapunzel's stepmother kept her
locked up in a tower.
These stereotypes have been around as folk tales for centuries, long before the
Grimm brothers codified them. With the possible exception of this century, mothers have
been strongly committed to their own children's futures and sometimes strongly opposed
to their stepchildren's claims to a decent future. History is replete with stories of queens,
taken as second wives of the king, who eliminated the children of the first queen as
contenders for the throne.
Do these fables mean anything or are they just stories from the past, never to be
repeated? In the modem era, abuse stories often revolve around stepparents, or lovers
who never quite become stepparents but who are around the children's home so much they
might as well be. Are the numbers so low that the chance that a stepparent would be
abusive is unbelievably unlikely? Or does it does it just occur in situations different from
your own? A different social class -- a different ethnic group -- only in urban
environments -- not with educated stepparents -- does one of these excuses for not being
concerned with how a stepmother will interact with your children appeal to you enough
for you to ignore the potential for grief?
Stepmothers can be violent and abusive. They can also be psychologically abusive.
Both of these terrors need to be thought about before anyone, stepmother or lover, is
allowed to have extensive contact with your child or children. The victims are not likely
to be teenagers. Teenagers can express themselves much more readily thanyounger
children, unless they are very shy and easily cowed by adults. You should have a good
communication channel open with children by the time they are this old. If you don't, why
are you bothering with a new relationship when the most important aspect of your life,
your children, needs your attention? If you are approachable, and your children feel they
can talk to you about anything, there is little that a new person in the house can do to
repress a teenager telling you about physical abuse.
Younger children are easily confused and may not know to tell you. As a father,
you should have taught your children to report any physical abuse by anyone to you. They .
should know that they can always come to you, no matter what happened to them. Even
though they hear this from you, they may not act on it. They may be scared by their new
Page 356 Version Date: May 29. 1994 KiDDSNotes

stepmother, or want desperately not to mess up your second marriage. They may want a
mom to be there and do not want to do anything to upset your chances of finding them
one. They may be totally unfamiliar with abuse and not understand that it is wrong,
despite what you and others have told them .. Stepmom may have excuses to tell you if
they do report it; most abusers do. You need to be able to detect such behavior
immediately -- abuse must not be allowed to continue.
If you find your new woman is abusive to one of your children, you must decide
what to do. Separating them immediately is necessary. Doing it is difficult. Unless you
have some proof of abuse, you cannot simply order your second wife to leave the house.
You can seek an immediately effective temporary injunction barring her from the home if
you have some evidence, but that means physical evidence, not the statements of the
abused child. You may have to leave yourself, taking your children. It is the nature of
American law that, in order to protect the innocent, victims of alleged crimes have to
suffer and suffer. .
There is no room for cowardice in dealing with possible physical abuse. Hoping
that it will go away does not work. It is possible that a stepmother would hurt a child
accidentally and if it can be determined that this is the case, nothing needs to be done other
that to cure the cause of the accident. However, the most common excuse for abuse is that
the injury was caused by an accident or occurred accidentally. And remember, about half
of known domestic violence is done by women.
The other side of abuse is darker and harder to deal with: psychological abuse.
This means undermining the self-esteem of a child. A child who has been through divorce
may already have grave doubts about his or her self-worth. A stepmother who acts as if a
young child were not worth her time or attention or affection and a father who seems to
be very attached to the stepmother may indicate to the child that he or she is a useless
nuisance. Some people are actually insensitive enough to simply not care about the
feelings of children or have a mean streak that involves giving off subtle indications of
devaluation. Only by watching the interaction of child and stepmother is there a possibility
of figuring out if such psychological abuse is occurring.
It is possible but less likely that the stepmother acts as if she had schizophrenia.
When the father is around, she treats the child gently and carefully, if not affectionately.
When alone with the child, no holds are barred in the insults or threats she might make to
hurt the child. The father must have excellent communication with the child to be able to
hear his or her side of this. The excellent communication has to be developed before the
new parent is introduced, as it would be quite hard to induce a child to trust his father
enough to complain about someone he or she observes the father cares about, unless that
rapport has existed for some time and was beyond question in the child's mind.
If a father believes that his new partner is psychologically abusive toward his child,
then he must decide which course to follow. Perhaps the new partner is simply completely
inexperienced with children and doesn't know how to treat young ones. This is obviously
curable. If instead, it is a combination of meanness and sneakiness, then the father has to
decide to put his children first. If there is no legal marriage between the two, the
stepmother must go. There are many women available in the world for most men, but his
children are irreplaceable human beings who must be protected from further hurt. Even if
he has made a drastic mistake and married the vicious person, it has to be terminated
KIDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 357

before the children suffer. Trying to keep them apart is not a solution. Better a second
divorce than a life of degradation.
Page 358 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
KiDDS Notes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 359

Blended Families

Remarriage for a custodial father involves figuring out, in advance, how a new
mother and her children, if any, will be able to integrate into the lives of him and his
children. Several items of concern are listed here.

Most fathers who divorce get remarried, often within a few years of divorce. The
statistics that are collected do not discriminate between custodial fathers and non-custodial
fathers, who regrettably far outnumber the custodial ones. No matter what the statistics
are, there are many men who remarry while they have custody of their children. Often
they marry women in the same situation; mothers with custody of their children. Handling
these two situations, having a stepmother in the house and having stepchildren as well,
which is often called 'making a "blended family"', requires some new thinking. This
writing covers the latter situation, where the father makes a large double jump in
complexity, from one of a parenting partnership to single custodial father, to being a
stepfather as well.
Children who have gone through divorce are often confused and unhappy for the
first year or more. They don't know what to think about their role in their parents' broken
marriage. They don't know if the role they played before the breakup contributed to the
miserable situation. Many, especially the youngest, will assume they are at fault in some
way. When a new person enters the family, for example, you as a stepfather, they don't
know how to act toward him to avoid creating the same problem in their mother's new
mamage.
Some children may have been treated harshly 'and may be afraid of a new
stepfather or very secretive around him. The stepfather's natural children may see a even
worse situation. They first lost their mother to divorce. Now they are losing their father
to a woman and her children. There is a tremendous potential for step-sibling conflict in
these blended marriages.
The stepfather has several tasks on top of those of dealing with the needs of his
own children. He needs to reassure his own children that they are still number one with
him. The fact that he has a whole new family to take care of may make them disbelieve it,
especially if some of the stepmother's children demand his attention for some reason or by
their own choice. No matter how generous with his time he is, how charitable he feels
toward his stepchildren, how fair he desires to be, his first priority is to reassure his own
children of his unswerving devotion to them and to make absolutely sure their needs are.
completely met. He should remember that his new wife was taking care of her own
children by herselfbefore the remarriage and she is no doubt still capable of doing so.
Changes should be made gradually. He needs to maintain his contact and communication
with his children. If his new wife does not understand this, she is not much of a mother
and the father may have made a very poor choice as a second wife.
This task of reassurance is going to take some sensitivity. There is no doubt that
he is going to have less time for them. He will want to spend time with his new wife. Her
children will get some as well. That means less for his natural children. If the reduction in
Page 360 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

his contact is abrupt and large, his children may develop such a dislike for their stepmother
and step siblings that the marriage will be very rocky and may disintegrate. Such an
experience, going through a second divorce, may leave the children in an even worse state
than the first one did. The children may take blame for the second divorce, especially if
there was considerable friction between them and their stepmother or one or more of their
step-siblings. They may feel they are simply bad children, because no one wants to be
their mother. The potential for serious detrimental effects is great, even though a
successful remarriage has many benefits for all the children involved. Remarriage needs to
be well-founded and well-managed. First marriages are simple compared to these, and
they often fail in spectacular ways.
The second task the father has is the opposite of the first one. He has to devote
enough time to his second wife that she feels it was worth her time marrying him. Of
course, she may have been so concerned with her children that she entered the second
marriage as much for their sake as for her own satisfaction.' A woman with that much
devotion and dedication to her children is laudable. The downside is expressed simply:
would someone that dedicated to her children be able to be a fair stepmother and give
adequate attention and even love to her stepchildren, who inevitably are going to be
competing with her own.
The other extreme is more common with women without children that ones with
children, although there are many single mothers in this category. She may be looking for
unlimited love and devotion. She may regard a father's love for his children, and his
insistence on devoting a large part of his time to their lives and to contact with them, as a
negative comment on her own worth, so much so that her own sense of self-esteem is
crinkled. If: as time goes by in the marriage, she is not able to woo her new husband away
from his children and toward herself and her children, will she feel she is a failure as a
woman? Will she make increasing demands on his time, always pressing him to
shortchange his own children? It is imperative that any man contemplating making a
blended family with a single mother understand her psychology. Otherwise he will be
setting himself up to be pulled apart by the competing demands on his time. Since an adult
is usually more competent at exerting pressure or at manipulating than are children, she
may be quite successful at doing so. In this case, his children will be much worse off than
they would have been had he turned down the remarriage opportunity.
One model for a successful blended family is that of a merger. In a business
merger, each company keeps doing the same jobs it was doing before the merger, and
gradually some efficiencies are introduced. Rather than looking for a romantic
relationship, a commonsense relationship based on assisting one another in rearing their
children puts things into the best focus. This means the father has to find a competent
single mother, not one who needs rescuing from her difficult burdens by a knight in
shining armor. Save the armor for the divorce court. No father needs to take on a woman
who is bumbling her own custody situation. He will sacrifice too much of his own
children's needs to do so.
The third task, which is third in priority, for a father entering into a blended family,
is to develop his relationship with her children. This has to happen before the marriage
starts, even before any living together starts. If he does not relate well to the child or
children, nix on the relationship. Mild disagreements might be tolerable, but to live with a
KiDDS Notes Version Date: ~)"29,r994 Page 361

child not your own that you cannot get along with will sour any relationship. Love doesn't
conquer all. It doesn't conquer live-in trouble. It wouldn't be fair to the stepchild to do
so. A very small child is quite malleable, but an older child is much like an adult, in that
his or her personality is developed and fixed in large extent. To expect that the child is
going to change to fit the new situation is like hoping that a man can change a woman he
marries into something she is not. It doesn't work that way. Changing people is very
difficult and very long-term. It is very intensive and very stressful. A single custodial
father almost always does not have the time and effort left to do this. Avoid trouble and
avoid making trouble by staying out of relationships when the children are not compatible.
Next, the father, having accepted the stepchildren, needs to define his relationship
with them. Is he like their father, with authority over them, having to discipline them,
rescue them from their problems, help them with their difficulties? Or are these tasks to
be left to their mother, with him being more a backup for assistance, perhaps a counselor
or a confidant? He and his new wife need to make choices for this, rather than letting it
just happen and then, if the partnership runs into trouble, having a major conflict.
Lastly, if the above is not enough, he has to prepare his children for sharing a
household with the new children. How are they to behave? Can they continue to count
on their father to always be there for them or are they going to have to develop a
relationship with their stepmother to take the place of the gap their father's attention to his
stepchildren will cause?
All of the above problems can be solved and have been in the numerous blended
families that exist in America. The point to be made is that there is much thinking about
how to do it; this thinking needs to be done by the father and mother together, perhaps
even in consultation with older children. Otherwise a debacle can arise, with every party
in the situation coming out worse than before. .
Page 362 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes
, .." .-'
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 363

Pre-nuptials for the Previously

Married

Anyone seeking to write a prenuptial needs to think in advance of the result of it

for his children and grandchildren. If he does not, and instead follows the advice of his
bride's lawyer or financial advisor, he is likely to be taken advantage of.

When two people come together to get married, they rarely have the same
situations. This is especially true if one or both have already been married and have
children. One of the two may have more assets, the other more income. One may be
retiring earlier than the other, or one may have health liabilities. One may have health
insurance available at reasonable cost from his or her employment, and the other may have
large life insurance policies. Because of these differences, figuring out a fair prenuptial
agreement is sometimes difficult.
There really isn't anything fair in a prenuptial. It is a measure of what each of the
couple is willing to give up and what they are insisting on keeping. Still, there are some
agreements that, from the point of view of the children of the two prospective partners,
slant the inheritance that might be accumulated during the couple's marriage completely
toward the children of one of the partners, leaving the other's with the dregs. It may be
that the partner whose children get the whole pizza understands the law or has a legal
advisor who tells her what to do, and the other is such a fool that he goes along with it
because it can be explained as fair. That is what a fair while unfair prenuptial is: one that,
from one way of explaining, is fair, but when any other point of view is used, e.g., what is
the outcome of the prenuptial, is completely unfair.
Suppose the partners consist of one who is employed and one who owns a house
from a previous marriage. The employed one puts into the marriage his income and the
unemployed one puts in the equivalent rental value of the house. Since the house is paid
for, only taxes have to be contributed, say from her saving. What is the outcome of this
prenuptial many years later, after a successful marriage ends in the death of one of the
partners. The employed one has no savings, his heirs get nothing. The unemployed one
gets the house, which might have tremendous value, especially if a period of house price
inflation occurred.
If instead of making that prenuptial, the couple had bought a house and sold the
unemployed one's house, they would both have contributed to the house and by the time it
was paid for, the savings that the unemployed one had would have been drawn down to
make her contributions to the marriage. But in this situation, the heirs of the employed
one would have a substantial inheritance, and the unemployed one's heirs would have less.
Which of these is fair? Certainly few would think that for one side's heirs to be essentially
disinherited by a prenuptial agreement would not be fair, unless of course that was the
intention of both of the couple.
Thus, when making a prenuptial agreement for a remarriage, a man should be very
cautious not to take the advice of his wife's lawyer. That is a sure sign of his legal
Page 364 , Version Date: May 29, 1994 IGDDSNotes

incompetence and financial naivete. If he is the usual man entering marriage, believing in
the goodwill and trustworthiness of women, he might deserve to be taken like the fool that
he is. But to deprive children and grandchildren of their potential inheritance is completely
a different story. He needs to contact an advisor who is not committed to his wife's side
of the arrangement, and who can project for him what the outcome of his potential
prenuptial agreement might be.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 365

Fathers' Rights
Groups
Page 366 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
KiDDS Notes Version Date: May 30, 1994 Page 367

Join a Fathers' Rights Group!

Men in divorce court are simply cannon-fodder. Only by banding together into
groups and fighting for equality and justice will our children be rescued from this
tyranny. This note describes how to join or organize a group and what to do with
one.

African-Americans did not overcome the prejudicial laws against them by taking
on the establishment one by one. They banded together for marches and demonstrations,
to support legal actions or political movements. So must divorced fathers.
The first response of a divorced father is to survive and do what he can for himself
Usually that means giving up his income, his children and his possessions to his spouse and
starting a new life. Many men do this, and with time the memory of the terrible time
passes. Even the financial burden eases after years or decades. Other men try to find a
Lone Ranger to rescue themselves, i.e., a lawyer who will obtain justice. The common
result of this is that they wind up poorer and with little more success than those who run
away. One by one, divorced fathers are chopped down like weeds before a lawnmower.
A few manage to win by dint of long, long court battles, perhaps even representing
themselves. The effort needed to do this may be so large that their lives are ruined.
There is a better way. Fathers can join together. Unfortunately, they usually, in
fact almost invariably, do not. Divorce is often so scarring that when a father finally gets
through it, the last thing he wants to do is to be involved with trying to fix the system.
Because of this, the perpetrators of the injustices can keep on playing the same tricks on
more and more victims. Without an organized block of active citizens to expose and fight
the prejudicial practices in our courts and the legislature that writes the laws, to lobby for
honesty and equity, to make politicians aware of the terrible cost to the nation of
butchering the lives of so many men and their children, nothing will get better. Divorced
fathers must make the effort and find the time to support their brethren.
Few groups exist to support divorced fathers and fewer last very long. Hearing
the same agonized stories over and over again is a sure way for burnout to hit the
organizers of such groups. Being powerless to give advice that will make an immediate
difference is so frustrating that few can go on doing it for long. A fathers' group that
simply counsels has difficulty in surviving. Usually, something else must be done to give
the members some hope that the divorce mess, which they are trying to slog through or
which they just got out of, is curable.
There are several missions that a divorced fathers' group can do that do not lead to
burnout. One is to keep as many men out of the system as possible. This means teaching
others about alternative marriage, that is, marriage by formal contract rather than by the
pulverizing laws of the various states. As the alternative marriage movement grows,
perhaps our esteemed leaders in the states will get the message that everything isn't all
right in Oz. The second is to make counseling impersonal. Write down all the helpful
. ideas and suggestions that you can. Type it up and mail it to anyone who needs
counseling. There are ways to mitigate divorce hell, even though there are none to
Page 368 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDS Notes

alleviate it. Write them down and share them. Improve the list on a regular basis. Don't
relive your experiences by listening to another's unless you can really help. The KiDDS
Notes that you are reading now were an outgrowth of such counseling methods.
Third, complain and complain. A letter to a politician signed by fifty people is not
the same as a letter signed by one person. Politicians frankly serve to have themselves
reelected. Voters reelect. Get everyone in the group registered and, in every campaign
for state offices, poll the candidates on fathers' rights. Publish the answers.
Fourth, have some fun in the media. Pick a spokesman and prepare him for a radio
talk show. Get him on cable. Make your own video and have it shown by the cable
company.
Fifth, link up with the national organizations. There are several that are devoted to
fathers' rights. Learn what they are doing. Send a representative to their conventions.
Have some fun while you are doing it. Find out where the nearest other fathers' group is
and send a representative or go visit them as a group. Some groups specialize in tracking
the latest anti-father laws. Get on their mailing list. Get on the mailing lists of politicians
who deal with such topics.
Lastly, think of wild things. If a member has some legal talent, send him to ..
evening school to learn to be a lawyer, if that is legal in your state (it is in California).
Other members can help with tuition, child care, or other chores. If it's not legal, write
those letters to the state legislature complaining about this rule and get it changed. Take a
trip together. Crash a women's convention -- but prepare to be shocked at some of the
violently anti-male tirades heard there. Get some women to join your group, as it's useful
to have a female spokesperson for fathers in some situations. Call up other groups and tell
them more wild things to do so they can have some fun too! Get on the nation's newest
communication medium: electronic networks.
The last point to discuss is how to find members. Newspapers are the best
method. Find a helpful reporter -- there are many who have been beaten up in divorce
court and are willing to write about it. Get an article in the paper with a telephone
number, or less effectively, a P.O. Box. Put an ad in. Get in the calendar section. Get
into alternative newspapers. Try weeklies as well as dailies. Tack up some signs in
obvious places, like the parking garage outside of court, unless laws prohibit it. Use
supermarket bulletin boards. Give your number out on the radio. Get published in
company newsletters as a counseling service for fathers going through divorce. Attend
other meetings of other groups and talk about yours. It all takes time, but have fun doing
it. Just don't give up. America's history is so successful because groups organized and
stuck together to resolve their problems and complaints. The world's most eminent
democracy, the "Light unto the World" we live in, was founded by people like yourself
banding together to tell King George III where he could put his tea. It wasn't easy, it
wasn't bloodless, but it was certainly worth it. Freeing men from the tyranny of the
modem divorce mafia won't be easy either, but the kids of our country need to have it
done. Now is the time to get started.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 369

Proving Bias with Statistics

One project a non-politiC41 men's rights group could do would be to take data on
what one prejudiced judge does in the area of custody awards. A single extensive
history of his decisions might spur our legislatures to investigate the problem
everywhere.

Men's rights groups are formed for several purposes. Some are politically active.
Others exist for the purpose of sharing information and doing counseling. In these groups,
there has to be a core of experienced father-victims who can serve to enlighten the new
members as to what to expect and how to avoid the worst of the disasters. These groups,
of which KiDDS is one, provide a useful service in helping individuals survive the divorce
system. They advise on what steps to take before, during and after the divorce to help
both the father and his children survive the prejudice and greed they may encounter. But
much more can be done along the lines of individuals helping individuals. .
Corruption and bigotry can only exist in the darkness. Any man who protests the
loss of his children can be labeled as a sore loser, the poorer parent, or worse. A favorite
tactic is to claim that any man who objects publicly to bigotry in custody awards is that he
is unhappy at having to pay child support. There is no defense against this smear that an
individual can use in the media to call attention to the problems of the divorce system.
Data across many divorce cases would be necessary. .
At this time, there is no investigative agency at either state or federal levels that
covers sexist prejudice in custody awards. Each divorce case is done separately and each
individual claiming prejudice would have to show prejudice in his own divorce. No adding
up of the numbers of awards exists except for census reports of how many single parents
belong to each sex and some other very coarse counts. If someone went to the trouble of
doing so, it is inevitable that some state judges would appear as so slanted as to be a
public scandal. But no one has done so yet.
One of the reasons for this lack of information is that collecting the data is difficult.
There is no simple computer file that a group could get and do statistics on. Each case is
handled in its own computer file, and each court has its own records. The records are
largely English text rather than statistics; it is nothing like a data base that could be
processed. Paper records are available and are open to public record, but each case is
individual in its sequence of actions and would have to be read separately. It would
require perhaps a hundred man-hours to take data on the decisions of a single judge.
It is simply too much work for any individual, especially one who is involved in a
court battle or has just become a single father. The work takes intelligence, as the reader
of such files must wade through all manner of motions to find out what the custody award
was. But it needs to be done.
One way to do it would be to induce the legislature to have it done. At this point
in time, even the politically-oriented fathers' groups do not have much influence in
legislatures, as far as the results of their actions would indicate. Women's groups are
much larger and more vociferous. They have been around a long time, perhaps since the
Page 370 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

sufferance campaigns of the last century. With the emancipation of women in the home
and in business, there is not much left for some of these groups to do, and so they have
seized upon the problems of divorce to drum up business. If these professional advocates
of women's affairs do not find an issue that will cause women to become alarmed and want
to contribute to the maintenance of these groups, they may have to fold up or at least cut
salaries. Emphasizing women's divorce has been the marketing ploy of these groups, and
their already developed financial resources and mass marketing strategies have proven
very effective in lobbying. Men's groups don't seem to have salaries, so they are not in
quite as much danger of having to manufacture issues. Nor do they need to; men's divorce
problems are quite real. But without the already existing communication channels and
marketing organizations that women's groups have, they certainly don't have the clout of
the major women's groups. So far, men's groups have had little effect on state legislatures
in affecting new laws relating to divorce.
However, it might be worth a try to get a state legislature to do some review of the
state courts. Even one state's results might be enough to stir up a hornet's nest and cause
a cleaning of the divorce mess everywhere. But so far there is no indication that any state
legislature is about to dig into this area. It could lose a lot of votes from organized
women's groups, as women continue to profit from the injustices of divorce.
The other alternative is to get out and take names as a group. If a group of men's
rights advocates were able to muster 10 or so volunteers, they could collect data on
several judges within a few months, and hit the papers with the results immediately
afterward.
Such a program would need a leader with the ability to organize a data collection
project. There are few steps that actually need to be followed. Some sort of form for
reporting has to be done, volunteers trained on interpreting court documents, and some
checking has to be done to ensure validity. The country is waiting for such a group to
organize and turn the spotlight on a phenomena that hurts our children and hurts our
nation as a whole.
KiDDSNoteS VersionD~teiMay29, 1994 Page 371

Shining a Spotlight· on Bigots

One man against the divorce court sYstem is like one bee against a bear stealing
honey. It necessary to get all the bees out of the hive and stinging mad in order to get
the bear's attention.

If you have never been a victim of bigotry, you cannot realize how rotten it can
make you feel. .There is a great gulf between you hearing about someone who acts in a
prejudiced way or hearing someone express prejudice and you actually being its victim.
The difference is like the difference between watching a movie where someone gets hit
and actually getting punched, hard, in the solar plexus. You easily can forget about what
you saw; but forgetting the pain and the doubling up from the impact doesn't come so
easy. It's a memory that is engraved on the stele of your mind.
The same is true when a bigoted judge or custody evaluator spits in your face with
a decision that goes against all evidence and logic to deny you or your children some basic
necessity, a minimum of contact, some recourse from abuse, some protection against
harassment. It takes time to recover from the shock of hearing the decision; it takes a
little longer before it sinks in that you have almost no way to defend yourself against such
decisions in court. The court system is designed to protect its inhabitants from nuisances
like you who want them to be reasonable or to take into account your needs instead of
only those of your ex-wife. There is nothing you can do by yourself You need to find
help. '
Men have been getting shafted by judges in divorce court for so long that there are
a lot of victims walking around. Most sailed through it in a trance, guided and beguiled by
their lawyers and unaware they were being taken and exploited. Divorce is a time when
many men get depressed and disoriented, which makes them easy victims for the court.
The physical breakup of the marriage relation is often a shock that anesthetizes men to the
financial whipping that follows in court. But there are more and more who are not in
coma and who are willing to take on the gang of plunderers that squish down fathers like
dead cats on the freeway. Only by massing together can men find enough strength to do
something to stop the tragedy of discrimination.
One solution is to take on a single judge and shine a media spotlight on him.
Which judge merits such singling out? Only those who have proven themselves unable to
grant custody to men despite these men's abilities to parent well; who insist on slanting all
financial decisions to favor ex-wives; who don't seem to care about the welfare of children
as much as chasing some fanciful goal of protecting women from imaginary deprivations
at the hands of their husbands; who seem to delight in devising new ways to empty a man's
wallet. One case can not make a judge merit a spotlight -- but ten or twenty or fifty can.
A men's rights group, or a coalition of them can make this determination. One of
the most important actions that such a group can take is to let the men who approach it
realize that they have been wronged, that the system is stacked against them, and that
what happened to them and their children is not their fault, it is the inevitable outcome of a
discriminatory system. And that it doesn't have to stay that way.
Page 372 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

Many men hear from their lawyers that they shouldn't try to do anything about the
divorce racket. They hear that it's too complicated or too entrenched. They hear that this
is the way the system always has been and they would be better off forgetting about it and
"getting on with their lives". This little phrase, "getting on with your life," means turning
your back on a system that cries out for reform. It means abandoning the rest of the
fathers who will go through it to the same injustices as the abandoner endured. It may be
easier to for a victim to put the disaster behind him, but it is a coward's way out. America
did not become strong because people abandoned their fellow man when he was in need of
help. It did not become an example to the world as a citadel of human rights because its
citizens gave up when discrimination occurred. It did not become a "light unto the world"
because its inhabitants ran away from cleaning up a sewer of bias and bigotry. It became
so impressive to the rest of the world because victims of rights abuse realized they could
do something about it.
. Such a realization is the first step in making the necessary changes in the system.
Countless changes have been wrought in America by such groups realizing that something
is wrong and deciding to fix it - perhaps by just calling attention to the wrong. Shining a
spotlight on bigotry may be enough to cause society to do something about it.. At the very
least it lets more of its victims realize what happened to them. That is a major advance
down to road to sexist equity in divorce court.
The first step in shining a spotlight is to decide which judge needs to find out the
jig is up. Sometimes all the judges in a county act like they would have enjoyed lynching
Negroes in Mississippi forty years ago. It's hard to agree on who's worst. One has to be
selected. He or she should be the worst offender, but if there is no winner in a popularity
poll of the victims, the one who has been on the bench the longest might as well have the
honor.
Even taking this step is beneficial. If a men's rights group created a list of judges
in the area and evaluated them according to their favoritism to females, it would be a
useful tool for men seeking a choice of judge to use. Furthermore, if this was buttressed
by a guide to the court's custody evaluator's prejudices and to local divorce lawyers'
willingness to roll over and play dead at the foot of the judicial bench when supposedly
fighting for custody, it would be a wonderfully useful piece of work. But there is no need
to stop there. The fun has yet to begin.
The media is the spotlight. Since many men reporters have been victimized in
divorce court, it should not be too hard to find a willing accomplice who will report on the
activity of the group. This activity can be political in nature -- protesting to the legislature
that appoints or approves the appointment of judges to divorce court. It can be electoral
in those states that force judges to run for election or allow them to be impeached. It can
be simply attention-grabbing such as picketing the courtroom of one of the spiny anteaters
that continue to deny men their rights.
One person has to be the liaison to the media. He has to have the basis for the
protest well-articulated in a way that the newspaper-reading public will understand and
relate to it. He has to be both friendly enough and forceful enough to arrange for the
proper camera coverage of the protesters at any media event. He has to make sure that no
one steps over the line into an actionable offense, such as libeling the judge or breaking up
KIDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 373

the courtroom in a contemptuous way. He has to be able to help his compatriots express
the rage they feel at losing their children, their incomes, their lives.
One pitfall for such events is to appear too weak. A media event in which only a
few protesters show up is much worse than none at all. It is better to spend a few months
in getting better organized than to have a failed display. Another pitfall is to allow the
black-robed bigot to use his authority and eloquence to downplay or discredit the group
that has caught him in the act. The grounds for the protest have to be well thought out.
Picking out the worst examples of the judge's decisions and giving the media facts and
figures makes an impression that the judge's mealy-mouthed defenses cannot eliminate. A
third pitfall is to appear motivated by base emotions such as greed or revenge. A judge
who is cornered may simplyclaim that his detractors are looking for their. own profit or to
hurt their ex-wives. Again, facts and figures, case histories, counts and hard data will help
to deflect this defense.
Lastly, as in all other activities in the world, don't get discouraged. All progress is
made by perseverance -- stubbornness in the face of adversity. Democracy wasn't created ..
by wishful thinking and a quick declaration. It was created by a eight year long war. It's
time to enlist.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 375

Six Top Jobs for Fathers', Groups

A fathers' rights group can specialize in one of these tasks: counseling new victims
of divorce. referrals to lawyers and others. maintaining a judge and evaluator data
base. establishing connections with state/national groups, lobbying the legislature.

Here are six tasks that a divorced fathers' group could take on. Doing all six
would require a large amount of effort for a local group especially a new one, so some
selectivity is necessary.

• Support and Counseling: Fathers slapped with a divorce suit have to overcome the
emotional shock at the same time as they prepare to be assaulted by the courts. Finding
others who have been through the same process can be a major source of relief. Tips on
what to do to minimize the pain of the divorce, how to best help children get through it,
how to detect physical and psychological abuse by the ex-wife, how to survive financially,
and so on need to be shared.

• Referrals: A father who needs a lawyer shouldn't have to make a blind choice in a hurry,
yet that is what happens when he has no time to understand the process of making a
selection. A list of competent, non-gouging, father-oriented attorneys should be made by
any men's rights group. If the list is empty and no such beast exists, the best of the worst
should be listed along with how to deal with whoever is available.

• Judge and Evaluator Data Base: Since evaluators first and judges second are the most
common culprits for depriving a father of his rights, every scrap of information on them
should be collected and made available to all members in their struggle for the best
interests of their children. Knowledge of which professional psychologists will betray their
profession by supporting false accusations of abuse or molestation is another important
data base. Reports of private investigators on these categories of court personnel should
be tabulated as well.

• Membership: Ways of contacting fathers who are previous victims of court decisions
and those who are about to enter the process need to be developed. Unless a substantial
membership is collected, little can be done on the important processes of assisting men to
obtain their rights. Publicized meetings, cable TV interviews, radio plugs, direct contact
of men listed in court proceedings, information provided via cooperative lawyers,
electronic bulletin boards and employers' newsletters are some ways in which membership
can be obtained. These means also heighten public awareness of the raw deals that fathers
get over and over, and may lead some fathers to become aware that they do not have to
follow the prejudices of society and lose their kids.

• Legislative Lobbying: A local group can contact its state representatives and let them
know why they feel the current laws are imbecilic or bigoted. The representatives should
Page 376 VersionDate: May 29, 19~4 KiDDSNotes

also be informed about abuse of the law in courts. Approval of judges can be called into
question. Joint or coordinated letter-writing is often a majortool, as women's groups.
have demonstrated much to men's disadvantage.

• Connection with Others: Some way of connecting with larger groups or men's rights
umbrella groups should be done so that local groups can stay informed of what is going in
the state legislature and to collect national or state-wide information about developments
in men's rights, new abuses men are subjected to, other legal tricks victimizing. men that
started in other states that could spread, and so on. Some of the larger groups aid new
groups in getting established, provided that they form up as a local associate of the larger
group.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 377

Get Off the Floor and Start Punching

Put the anger and frustration that you fee/every time you are deprived of your
children and the fruits of your hard work to good use. Join a fathers' rights group and
work to cure the system that treated you so badly. You'll feel better for it.

A man is standing outside his ex-wife's home at precisely the time for a visitation
pickup of his children. No one seems home .. He remembers the last four visitation times
he came by: no one was home. It's only a question of how long he stands staring at the
door before he realizes he has to pack it in and drive back home, alone, again. He knows
I
that going back to court is going to accomplish nothing at all; he's already tried that and all
that happened was that he got poorer and wiser. Disappointment, anger .andfrustration
build up quickly as he thinks about his powerlessness to do anything for his children.
Another rotten day, he thinks, and when he adds them all up, it makes a rotten year.
Maybe you've been in this situation. Maybe you've been in the situation where you
can't make ends meet because a judge heaped payment upon payment on you and left your
ex-wife comfortably enjoying a leisure life. Maybe you've had your life savings snatched
away to pay for the fees of two lawyers who seemed completely disinterested in your
children's welfare. Maybe you have your own story ofa black-robed bigot who destroyed
your future and treated your life as if it were a piece of trash, all the time smiling and
mumbling legal phrases to cover up his bias. And everybody tells you they sympathize,
but "That's the way the system works."
To hell with that. You are not powerless. You have been defeated and your rights
denied, but that's a lot different from being dead, and as long as you are not dead, there is
no reason to give up. Turn the anger you feel into a useful channel. It doesn't matter if
you have no money left after the court got through with you. You don't need money to
stop injustice. You need to work. Just think: "They haven't killed me yet, and that means
they haven't stopped me."
We have grown up in a nation that was founded by people denied their rights,
denied liberty and freedom, and controlled by an indifferent or downright hostile
government. Our forefathers did not sit around feeling angry and thinking how rotten the
world is. They banded together and did something. They blew away the government they
hated. Are you mad enough to do something about the system that screwed you? Are
you willing to band together and do something about it instead of simply banging your
head against the walls of prejudice time and time again? Then go do it!
Do you have shoes? Then you're ahead of Washington's men at Valley Forge. Yet
they surprised the mercenaries of King George III and started a revolution that led to the
most free, most strong nation in the history of the world. We need to teach the mercenary
vultures of divorce court that another revolution is brewing, one in which men stand up
and do something about the mess that embroils our divorce courts. You need nothing but
your time.
Make it a rule that every time the system screws you, you will devote a block of
time to overturning it. No one home at visitation time? Go work for father's rights for ten
Page 378 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes

hours. Alimony jacked up? Go work for fathers' rights for fifty hours. Kicked out ofthe
house you sweated and slaved to earn? Sixty hours more. Saddled with legal fees greater
than a year's income? A hundred hours more! Judge buys off on a sleazy, unsupported
claim of child abuse to cut off your visitation rights? Two hundred hours! The more they
attack you, the more you need to do to combat them. Let the system's horrors drive you
to destroy it.
Do you get a jolt of adrenaline watching your ex's lawyer drive off in his
Mercedes) while you have to take the bus back to work? Does your fuze get lit when the
judge appoints an old crony to be a special master in your case at $250 an hour? Do you
feel like exploding when your ex-wife uses her child support money to buy an RV fitted
out better than your apartment? Go out and get busy .. Put your.anger to work and
destroy the system!
"United we stand) divided we fall." When you work on your own case) you are a
single) solitary individual. You can be squashed like a bug) and you have no recourse.
When you are part of a large group) you have to be listened to. Yelling with one voice)
you can be ignored. If you yell with a thousand voices) no one can fail to hear you.
The first step is to join or form a fathers' rights group. Then, when you are next
burning up at how you have been treated) go out and do something. Go to the courthouse
and look up cases in the records where other men have been screwed like you. Get the
addresses and recruit the victims. Every member you recruit means one more trooper in
the battle to stop what happened to you. Hand out leaflets to men in divorce court.
Recruit and recruit and recruit.
Get twenty of your cohorts and picket the courthouse. Show the judges who think
nothing of destroying the life of a man in less than an hour that they are not invincible. Go
do some detective work, find out the biography of the custody evaluator who took your
visitation away. Give it to the next victim so he can be more ready for her biases and
prejudices. Make a radio public service tape for your group. Write a hundred letters to
your state legislators. Go with a dozen other fathers to visit them. Call them all up. Fax
them. Find out what laws are being proposed that hurt fathers and tell the legislators why
they are bad ideas. Find out when a judge is standing for reelection and get a hundred
door-to-door marchers to campaign for his opponent. Collect money and send a fellow
victim from your group to law school in return for an agreement to gut the system from
inside. Get one of your members to become a clerk in the courthouse of horrors and tell
you all what really goes on in there. Have one of your members join the social services
agency concerned with abuse and neglect to be a mole for justice. You are not going to
get your rights back without assaulting the system that took them away.
Publish letters to the editor in every newspaper in your area. Get on cable TV.
Talk to people. Have public meeting and lectures. Be confident that you can cure the
problem and you will do it!
Sit around and brainstorm with your group about what you can do to stop the
divorce mess from spreading, and then go do the best of the ideas. You'll feel a lot better
for having done it. You may not have solved your personal problem, but who knows, the
outcry you create may lead to reforms. And when your children are older, you can tell
them all the efforts you made in their name and for their sake. Wouldn't it be better to tell .
them that after a judge decided you weren't worth being allowed to be a custodial parent,
KiDDSNotes Page 379

you bounced him out of office or got him convicted for corruption? It won't be easy to
do, so go get started now!
Just remember, you can accomplish almost nothing alone. That means you have to
band together with other victims, and be ready to submerge your own goals into those of
the group. Quarreling with each other is a recipe for failure and the best way to make sure
the system stays as crooked as it is. Remember, you must be a member of a group, the
larger the better. You cannot cure the system by yourself. Do not fight, secede, filibuster,
or do anything else to keep your group from accomplishing its goal of achieving full rights
for fathers. Put up with others' personalities in the hope of getting something done. Be
creative in suggesting what to do, but remember itmust be done together.
Page 380 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
' ..
KiDDS Notes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 381

The Big Picture

Page 382 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDS Notes
KiDDS Notes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 383

An End to Social Prejudice

Young fathers are ignoring the fact that men aren't supposed to take care of
babies and small children. They are the vanguard of a revolution that is going to turn
the judicial world of maternal custody prejudice upside down.

The beginning of the end to one of America's most pervasive and debilitating
prejudices is visible in its malls, its airports, and its parks. A decade ago, it would have
been very unusual to see a father alone with a baby or a young toddler in such places.
Now it's almost routine.
The people involved in the breakthrough appear to be young fathers, mostly in
their early twenties, who seem oblivious to the fact that they are spearheading a social
change. They appear in parks pushing strollers, with no women in sight. They climb on
airplanes with babies carried on their chests in packs. They even shop for baby clothes.
Their numbers are not huge, compared to the number of women seen in these roles. But
the numbers involved were virtually zero until a few years ago. Men didn't get involved
with babies. Perhaps they sat at home baby-sitting while their wives went out on other
women-only tasks like shopping for food or children's clothing. They did not go out with
a baby except if their wife was along to care for the baby. Now they do.
This revolution in male child care is occurring in a different way than might have
been expected. It would have been more understandable if men had gotten more and more
involved with older children first, and only gradually moved to taking care of the littlest
ones. It appears to be going the other way.
Fathers have always been involved in some stereotyped tasks with their children.
They teach their children to ride bicycles. They practice baseball with their sons and
softball with their daughters. They teach their children to drive. But the idea that they
would take over the usual chores of child-rearing when they had a wife around to do it is
not accepted. Mothers chauffeur their children. Mothers shop for their children. Mothers
take their children to the dentist and to the doctor. A visit to any large pediatric clinic
shows the waiting room to be wall-to-wall mothers and children. Except for the young
pioneers, men are few and far between.
Where did this social prejudice, that women take care of children outside the
home, come from? A century ago, fathers were the heads of their families. They took the
family where it had to go. They dealt with doctors. They dealt with teachers. They were
the authority, the external face of the family. Mother stayed at home and did housework
and child-rearing. The emancipation of women, the availability of simple transportation in
the automobile, the increase in educational levels, the decline in the demands of
housework as appliances became available, and other social and technological changes led
to women's role outside the family becoming more and more common. The child-rearing
role of women seeped from the home into all the places where children are found. Men
abdicated their roles in dealing with children's matters outside the home not as a result of
their loss of interest in children, but as a result of the shifting boundary between women's
Page 384 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

roles and men's roles in general. More and more, men were confined to the office and
factory. Their role was restricted to bringing home the income and dealing with finances.
A second revolution occurred. Slowly at first, and then at an accelerated tempo in
the 1970's, women went to work. The last bastion of male prerogative fell. Women
appeared in office tasks, moved into retail, into manufacturing, and even into heavy
construction. They joined the armed services, where their roles have been gradually
expanding to include all those that men occupy. They started companies and headed
government agencies. There were no more barriers that could not be seen to be falling.
Now comes the third wave. The youngest cohort offathers has apparently noticed
that men have no special roles left, yet their role in the family is limited and proscribed by
prejudices as to what men do and what they do not do. Those prejudices have been
breached as well. Dad goes to buy the diapers and then puts them on his baby. No
problem.
The first revolution took decades, perhaps a century, to unfold. The second
revolution only took a couple of decades. It moved faster because of the massive media
attention granted to working women. It also had the help of a women's movement that .
used the media and various institutions of higher education to change women's
programming into that suitable for a more equal role. The third may take just as little, or
less, if attention is given to it as well.
There is no reason left for the social prejudice that predisposes men to avoid child-
rearing. There are no compensating barriers left for women, although like all social
change it may take some more time for the women's work revolution to complete itself
The social programming received by men to avoid participating with their children in all
stages of their life and in all aspects of their life is apparently falling apart. It hasn't
worked on these youngest fathers. What this means is that the walls of bias that hold up
our judicial system of divorce and custody are going to be hit with new pressure as these
youngest fathers start divorcing in numbers, experiencing the bigotry in the courts, and
wondering what is the matter with our nation that permits such nonsense. They are
growing up as full partners in the rearing of their children, and they know that there is no
biological requirement that keeps men from being sole custodians of their children.
It also means that the battle for judicial fairness and better principles is going to be
joined by a new legion of fathers. Young fathers who have experienced complete care of
their children are going to scream when they run into evaluators who think that mothers
should have custody because they needthe money that child support provides and that
men are only interested in a means to protect their incomes or to be vindictive. Fathers
who have no trace of sexist prejudice are going to be shocked to stand in front of older
men, masquerading as egalitarian judges, who simply do not have the ability to conceive of
equality. When these fathers see judges who work out their own psychological problems
by denying men custody, there will be fireworks in the courtrooms. Instead of some
isolated examples of men who dare to seek custody, we will have men who have de facto
custody arriving in numbers in the courtroom, shocking those there into realizing that the
world is changing and they are being left behind. It's about time.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 385

A History of Marita'i Property

The rules by which property is divided up in a marriage vary greatly from state to
state, but they usually have a strong component of sharing marital earnings. Learning
the law before acquiring property would be a good idea.

Men who find history interesting might enjoy digging into the history of how law divides
up the property of a divorcing couple. Most people know that there are two systems
coexisting in the United States: one, community property, is the law in nine jurisdictions:
Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Washington and
Puerto Rico; the other, common law property, is the law in the other forty-two states and
the District of Columbia. The former one has its heritage in Spanish (and French in
Louisiana) law and the latter in English law.
Law on the European continent has always been much fairer to women than
English common law. Common law dates from a feudal system that has virtually no rights
for women. The husband owned everything in early common law. When he married, he
took over ownership of his wife's property and had absolute control over what he did with
it. He needed no consent whatsoever to dispose of his wife's property. If he died before
his wife, she was entitled to get 1/3 of whatever real property he had, unless he left her
more in his will. She had no rights to any personal property of her husband. These death
benefits were just about the sum of the rights a woman had, except that the husband was
required to sustain the wife. Divorce was separation, not dissolution, and still the husband
was required to support his wife.
These limitations on women changed drastically in America during the 1840's and
50's with the passage in all the states of the Married Women's Property Acts, which gave
women the right to own property in their own name and to dispose of it without their
husband's consent. They gave women a statutory share in both the real and personal
property of their husband upon his death. The exact details of this varied between states,
and still does. Divorce became allowed upon the demonstration of fault in one party, and
the rules for what constitutes something worth divorcing about varied greatly between
states as well. South Carolina was the last state to allow divorce, which occurred in 1949.
The divorce laws codified what property women were to receive in divorce, and this also
varied widely between states, with the one-third rule being most typical.
The other part of the United States never had laws that diminished women.
Spanish law (and French in Louisiana) regarded marriage not as a hostile takeover but as a
merger. This law was incorporated into the state law of Texas when it became free from
Mexico in 1836 and in the other seven southwestern and western states following the war
with Mexico in 1948. Louisiana had it from its inception in 1803 when it was purchased
from France by the United States, three years after the French had beaten Spain in a
European war and takenthe property back from Spain. Under this law, husband and wife
had equal shares in the marriage. Property was divided into three parts in community
property law: the husband's separate property that he owned before the marriage, the
wife's separate property, and their community property that was mostly everything they
Page 386 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes

obtained since the marriage. The theory was that the husband and wife jointly worked
together to obtain the benefits of the marriage and they were to share in them equally.
Law differed between the states on details, for example, was an improvement that the
husband did on the wife's separate property community property or her separate property.
In California, it is hers, in other states, theirs. Many other differences exist between the
states on how they define the boundary between separate and community property, for
example, with rents from separate property. In these states, when divorce happened, the
two partners each got their separate property and half of the community property. When
one partner died, the other got his or her half and the heirs of the deceased spouse got the
other halt: unless the decedent had a will that gave his or her spouse more than half
For about a century after the passage of the Married Women's Property Acts, the
states struggled with the question of what to do about marital property created under one
system in a divorce under the other one. For example, a couple marries in Delaware, buys
property, moves to Washington and divorces. Is the Delaware property community
property with the two parties sharing it equally or do they divide it according to Delaware
law? Each state seems to have found its own way in questions like these, dealing with
what is now called quasi-community property.
Any man wishing to figure out by himself what he would own after divorce needs
to consult one of the many texts on marital property available at any law library. Each
state's law is unique unto itself, but inside each state the law is not particularly complicated
or difficult to understand. What is difficult to understand is how the various states each
tried to figure out what is right or just or equitable and came up with so many different
answers. It should serve as a notice to everyone that the entire system is full of
ambiguities and that there is no right, just or equitable way to do everything, there is just
"the way it's done around here." Sometimes you lose and sometimes you win. Mostly if
you don't figure out the laws of your own state before you buy something or make an
agreement with your wife or move to a different state, you lose for being foolish.
Knowing the law is not only interesting, it can help you conduct your own affairs before
and during the marriage in a way that seems best for yourself
What you learn may impress on you the need for a more rational role of property
in marriage. Some commentators have been calling for an end to the complexity of law in
this area, and to replace it with a division at the point of acquisition, according to the
source of the funds. Under such a revolutionary rule, if only the husband chooses to
work, the property is his unless the couple agrees to split it according to some formula.
Having a default rule in state law keeps couples from having to argue about what they
should do and why, and buttresses up a partner who is too timid to stand up for his own
rights or too cowed by the myth of sharing in marriage to insist on keeping what he earns.
But maybe someday the various states will realize that, in order to promote productivity
and motivate employment and personal industry, they will have to give to the worker the
fruits of his or her labor.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 387

What Are Fathers' Rights?

Since the dawn of civilization, fathers have had the right to determine the care of
their children, except if they were slaves. In mid-twentieth century America, men
became slaves. It's time to throw off the chains and take back men's natural rights.

What rights do fathers have? Now, none. But what natural rights do they possess,
unavailable to them in the current morass of prejudice and political slavery?
Human rights are something that is intrinsic to being human. The fact that a legal
system denies these rights does not make them go away. It does no more than oppress the
holders of these rights. No matter how long rights are denied, or how loudly the voices of
oppression deny these rights, they do not cease to exist.
Fathers have the right to custody.
Purely and simply, fathers have the right to decide the care of their children. They
can decide that they will maintain custody of their children themselves or allow others to
take care of their children. At any time they can resume care of their children if their
designated care-givers do not live up to the expectations that the father has set, or if the
father decides that the time has come for him to take over direct care of his children.
Women have a corresponding right. They have the right to control the birth of
children. They can decide to become pregnant or not, and if pregnant, whether to give
birth to a child or to abort it. Their right ends when the child is viable and can live on his
or her own. The father's right to care for the child then takes effect.
In a natural two-parent family, the father normally takes the role of head. He, in
the custom of fifty centuries in every civilization that has progressed beyond Stone Age
culture, has had this right. In different centuries and in different lands, the exact
boundaries of his right to rule the family and especially to determine the rearing of his
children have differed, but the universal right of a father to rule over his offspring has
never been denied to him except under conditions of slavery. In slavery, fathers have
sometimes been denied the right to rear and care for their children, but other that this
condition and perhaps incarceration, his rights have been in force. That is, until now, in
modern twentieth century America and other places where America's influence has seeped.
All through the history of the United States up till the twentieth century, fathers'
rights to determine the care for their children have not been interfered with. However,
laws have set the limits of fathers' rights in different ways. One example of such
regulation was the child labor laws. In colonial America, children worked, along with
other members of the family. The vast majority of families were farm families, and
children had chores assigned to them according to their capabilities, typically involving
care of animals. These traditions were inherited from earlier customs, principally in
Europe, which has a much longer tradition of children caring for herds and flocks. When
industrialization began to change the world, children were assigned to work in factories in
lieu of farm work. These conditions were often exploitative and detrimental to the child in
ways impossible in the farm situation; yet they were permitted by some fathers for
Page 388 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

economic reasons. Society decided to put limits on child labor in various ways. This in no
way deprived fathers of their right to control the care of their children.
Another example is the institution of mandatory schooling. Fathers were
compelled to place their children in schools. Again, this modified a father's right to
determine the care of his children, but in no way did it terminate it or place another person
in his place. The schoolmaster was regarded as an agent for a father and subject to
control of local voters in one way or another via a democratic process.
In the late twentieth century, the battle to take control of a father's children began,
almost by accident. In an intact family, no organ of the state intruded on a father's control.
Even situations of child abuse were ignored almost completely until the 1940's. However,
divorce did occur, although in numbers far, far less than later this century. In a divorce,
the legislature decided that judges would be permitted to take control of a father's children
away from him without any justification, and award it to the children's mother. Of course,
rationalizations and justifications were invented to explain such an abrogation of the
universal human tradition known in every civilized nation. One incredible reason was that
women bore and nursed children and would therefore be better suited to rear them, as if
having a womb implied that a woman's mind was more attuned to rearing children than a .
man's. A more believable reason was that increasing industrialization demanded all the
effort it could from men, leaving them no time to care for their children. They were taken
away from the home by their jobs all day long, leaving no one in a divorced father's home
to care for young children. Another reason contributing to this revolution is that women
were granted a vote, and women of that era largely saw the family as a division of labor in
which the man left the home to work and the woman remained there to maintain it, which
included caring for the children. Denying them custody of their children would have upset
this division of labor, and would have offended women voters.
As long as the numbers of broken families stayed small, this effect was not a grave
insult to the traditional right of fathers to rear their children. Divorce was considered by
most people in these earlier times to be a shameful event, and the loss of a divorced
father's child-rearing rights could be interpreted as something that was deserved. After all,
a father was head of the family, and it was his duty to organize it and control it, meaning
that he had the ultimate responsibility to maintain it. This was a fiction, as wives chose
divorce for their own personal reasons in many cases, but it was a convenient fiction.
Under it, custom could dictate that there was no real need to worry about the loss of
child-rearing rights for those few fathers who were failures at marriage.
The problem grew to uncontrollable proportions with the explosion of divorce in
the latter part of the twentieth century. With almost half oftoday's children involved in
divorce, what was an ignorable erosion of fathers' rights became a torrential flood
sweeping away the underpinnings of society. Yet it built up so gradually that most men
never realized what had happened and what they had lost. Traditions that are corrupted
over periods of decades are less compelling to restore than those that are stolen away in
an instant. If fathers had complete control of their children, complete determination of
their care, and complete responsibility for their upbringing up to some cataclysmic event,
such as the passage of a law eliminating it, there would have been a coast-to-coast
revolution throwing out the legislators who approved such a law. Happening gradually,
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 389

there was nothing substantial that was tangible enough to revolt against. Rights lost by
drops are not noticed.
The rate at which rights are removed does not eliminate the loss; a slow rate of
deprivation merely makes it less obvious that one's rights are missing. Now that father's
rights are completely gone, it is clear what happened, although there is no specific
individual to blame and no specific event to seize upon. Fathers became slaves and lost
their rights by inches, and now they have miles to go to get them back. It's time for a
slaves' revolt.
 Page 390 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
/
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 391

Dumber Than Marxism

Depriving the majority of divorced fathers of custody is a foolish experiment and

our nation's equivalent of Marxism. Demotivating large numbers of men drags our
economy down and makes us all suffer. that is. all except for the vultures of divorce
court.

The selection of Marxism as a politico-economic system destroyed the Soviet

Union. The incredible legacies of Marx's theories, as put into practice by Lenin and his
followers, include an economy that is Third World, environmental pollution worse than
anywhere else in the world, and no political basis to build a democratic republic on. Yet
for eighty years, Marxism was espoused by the population of the USSR, as well as much
of the rest of the world for somewhat smaller lengths of time. This monumental error
must have lessons for us all. The first' one is that, just because everybody in a country .says
some system is the right way to run the country, the system should not remain free of
criticism. In fact, as Marxism proved, the system may be totally wrong. Convincing
masses of people doesn't prove anything about the utility and intelligence of social ideas.
Constant repetition of bad ideas can ensure their popularity; it can't ensure their
correctness.
The second point to learn is that social ideas that ignore human nature don't work
in the long run. Marxist philosophers were able to initially convince the masses of people
in the Soviet Union that they should not think of themselves and instead work hard and
contribute their effort to the common good. Around the time of the Communist
Revolution, the soviet citizenry was swept up by the idea of "From each according to his
ability, to each according to his need." But within a few years or decades, people figured
out they were being taken, and stopped working hard in many cases. A typical Soviet
joke was, "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work." Motivation of the
population failed under Marxism and the economy finally collapsed. Motivation failed
because people were deprived of the fruits of their labor; they received about the same no
matter whether they worked hard or hardly at all.
The United States and countries following its example are engaged in an
experiment to test the same idea. We are depriving large numbers of men of the fruits of
their labor, via divorce court rulings and exorbitant divorce court costs, and are expecting
them to contribute to the economy at the same rate as if they were allowed to benefit from
their hard work. Because the whole population is not affected by divorce rulings, the
overall effect of Marxism-like divorce is less in the United States than that of full-blown
Marxism in the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, divorce hits about half of married men, and it
hits many of them hard. As their enthusiasm to earn more by working harder and smarter
is sapped by the ill-treatment they receive in divorce court, and they see the courthouse
gang and leisure wives reaping the benefits of their hard work, there has to be a slowdown
of effort. In the Soviet Union, there was a large social class, the nomenklatura, who lived
extremely well while contributing little to the economy; in the United States, we have our
own nomenklatura, the divorce court lawyers, judges and hangers-on, living extremely
Page 392 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

well yet contributing only negatively to the economy. Seeing your ex-wife's lawyer drive
away in a Mercedes while you take the bus home is about as demotivating a situation as
you can find anywhere.
Typical fathers in intact families do not object to working hard to meet the
expenses of rearing their children; instead many men take pride in their ability to provide a
good living for their families. After divorce, men with custody are in the same situation.
They gladly contribute what they can earn, and earn what they can, so that their children
can benefit from the full effect of their talents and effort. Their work keeps the economy
growing. When an ex-wife is given custody, and along with it a huge fraction of the man's
capital and income, and when years of savings are swept away into unnecessary legal
costs, it is as if a father's eyes are opened.
The citizens of the Soviet Union woke up, one by one, and saw where they were
actually living. They stopped working hard. Similarly, most men do not give up working
after a divorce debacle, but they give up enthusiasm. Instead of competing for a
promotion and more money, they find other ways to compete that won't simply lead to an
increase in their support payments. Their employer suffers, and because there are so many
male victims of divorce court, employers everywhere and the economies of every state
take a hit.
Thus, denial of custody to fathers is not simply a violation of basic human rights, it
is economic masochism. Its benefits are negligible, except to those politicians who remain
in office on the basis of the incremental female vote they gain by supporting such inanity.
The losses caused by the denial are substantial. The whole economy must suffer from this
assault on basic economic principles, dragging us down into a worse economic situation
that would any system of divorce based on realistic social principles.
Of course, many factors control the fate of the United States economy.
Demotivating a large fraction of the population is only one competing cause of economic
problems. Yet, given the rest of the problems that the economy faces, it seems eminently
insane to add this demotivation to the mix.
As we saw in the eighty year reign of crazy Marxist ideas in the Soviet Union, it is
not at all clear what has to happen in order for a society to give up on some cherished
errors. The Soviet Union had to economically collapse in order for Marxism to be
dethroned. Since people in the Soviet Union were conditioned by constant teaching and
propaganda to believe in the theory, something dramatic had to happen to break the spell
that the nomenklatura kept the country in. That something dramatic was devastating.
The United States may not have to commit complete economic suicide in order for
the population to realize the error of feminine custody prejudice. Our one saving grace is
our freedom of speech. For almost all of the eighty years of totalitarian Marxism, free
speech in the area of criticism of Marxism was suppressed, brutally and completely. Here,
free speech is not suppressed, although opinions that attack our most cherished
foolishnesses have a hard time being heard. The question that faces us is, how bad a
situation do we have to descend to before enough people pay attention to the economic
debilitation of a large fraction of our male population? Let us hope that total collapse is
not required, and that men who suffer from the injustice of today's divorce courts will find
that they can end the country's silly experiment of female custody preference through
organization and political action.
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 393

Examples From Elsewhere

Other nations have figured out how to do divorce, and not all of them follow the
American model. We can learn how to simply eliminate most of the antagonism
between ex-spouses, which lets them cooperate on child-rearing.

Other nations have divorce. None of them have the gigantic, expensive, traumatic
system of divorce that the United States does. There are many examples of how other
countries deal with the various areas of divorce more successfully than we do.
Ex-spouses who battle over finances, or bear grudges based on financial
settlements, are less likely to cooperate with each other to rear their children in the best
possible way. Sweden and some other Nordic countries have a simple solution to that
problem: Put the state between the ex-spouses. Here are some basic principles that
accomplish that. ,
Each custodial parent receives a certain allowance from the state for each child
that they have custody of
Each non-custodial parent pays what he or she can to the state for each child that
he or she does not have custody of, up to the amount that is paid by the state
to the custodial parent. The amount paid is based on the income and assets of
the non-custodial spouse.
Each ex-spouse who is not capable of self-support is supported by the state at a
standard level until they are able of supporting themselves.
These principles eliminate the majority offinancial conflicts between ex-spouses. No
custodial spouse can attack a non-custodial spouse in court to obtain more money. No
custodial spouse or child suffers from having a "deadbeat parent"; only the state is
responsible for collecting money for support from a non-custodial parent.
The United States has the third of these principles already in practice, but not in
divorce cases, in its Widows and Survivors Insurance. Extending this form of welfare to
divorced spouses would ensure that there is no conflict between parents, and each
divorced spouse is encouraged to work at the best employment they can obtain, which
benefits society and the nation through taxes that are collected. Instead of having ex-
spouses demoralized by having their incomes savaged by divorce rulings, they are left
alone to continue to work productively. This addition to national income would probably
pay for any increase in welfare payments caused by these principles.
The other primary area of financial contention between ex-spouses comes from the
division of assets. Very few countries have the involved system that we do, with some
states using various community property rules and others with common law precedents.
A simple solution is as follows:
The earner of income has the right to spend or divide it. He or she may put major
items of property in his or her own name, or donate a portion to his or her
spouse.
Page 394 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDS Notes

Property in single name ownership belongs to that person. Property in dual name
ownership belongs to both spouses equally, except if otherwise agreed upon in
writing.
Items too small to have ownership recorded are to be equally divided by the
parties in divorce, by lottery or any other method the parties agree on.
A dual-name family residence is to be sold at the outset of divorce, unless the
parties agree otherwise or have agreed otherwise at the time of purchase of
the property.
With no financial considerations to cause hatred or vindictiveness between the parties,
they can proceed to work together on the most important task of a marriage, rearing the
children.
Custody is simply made joint in many countries, such as in Eastern Europe and
elsewhere. This idea is also popular in the United States among men's groups, as men are
almost always the ones short-changed in custody arrangements.
A standard 509/0-50% division of custody time should be the default decision,
unless the parties agree otherwise or one of. the parties is psychologically
incompetent to be a parent, as certified by a well-trained psychiatrist. The
parties can change that to anything they want to outside of court, and no one
is responsible for ensuring that court orders are followed unless one of the
spouses registers a complaint, in which case the court decision is the one
used
If young people were trained in being a parent during their high school education, there
would be much less of a problem with complaints about child-rearing between ex-spouses,
although differences will of course exist, much as they do between non-divorced parents.
Non-divorced or divorced parents should be able to obtain competent mediation
of child-rearing problems for the best interests of the child
The mediation should be regulated by the state, with only licensed mediators able to
practice mediation.
The inducement for ex-spouses to battle one another by combative and avaricious
lawyers would be virtually halted by these rules. This nastiness could be completely
eliminated by using a rule from the Netherlands and elsewhere.
Lawyers representing each side in any remaining divorce problems are state
employees, paid a fixed wage by the state and assigned by random to the
divorcing parties. They are officers of the court rather than antagonists hired
by the divorcing parties.
This concept is carried a bit farther in Spain and some Mediterranean countries.
Divorce investigations are carried out by thejudge who makes the decisions, and
his work and results are reviewed by two other judges before being
announced Thejudges are assigned by random selection to each case, and
they are subject to periodic election.
With these rules, not only are the major causes of divorce conflicts eliminated, but the
profit is taken out of it.
Under our current system of divorce, there is an immense amount of money
flowing every year out of the income and assets of families with children into the pockets
of lawyers, psychologists, and other members of the "courthouse gang". This amount of
KiDDS Notes Version Date: May 29,1994 Page 395

money is so large that it can easily suborn legislators through generous contributions via
lawyers' PACs or other means of influencing legislation. Because our American
government is largely a government of money, only by organizing large numbers of
citizens are we likely to see an elimination of the pain that the divorce system adds to
families that fall into its grasp.
Page 396 Version Date: May 29,1994 KiDDSNotes
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 397

Fair Custody Laws

If there were no prejudice aKainst fathers in divorce court, and custody went to
both genders equally, most of the problems of deadbeat dads, the mommy track, child
care and others hindering children and parents would go Clway. Judges are the key.

When an issue involving divorced couples comes before state legislators, there are
usually a host of organizations, mostly women's groups, that arrive to testify. These same
groups spend much of their time lobbying the legislators in private. The only reason that
women's groups weigh in on these issues is that the issues of divorce masquerade as
women's issues. There is one simple reason for this.
Women have about 90% of child custody. That means that any issue that favors or
disfavors custodial parents becomes a women's issue. The huge professional organizations
that cater to women can then seize upon the issue and polarize it. Instead of having these
issues decided on the basis of what is best for the spouses and children of the marriage
being ended, it becomes one in which these women's groups bring their huge voting power
and campaign contribution muscle to distort the legislative process. Whichever side of the
issue favors women becomes an almost inevitable winner.
It also means that another item has been found that will serve to divide the genders
and make American society more of a battleground. Each issue that women's groups turn
into a women's issue is simply one more reason for men and women to be divided from
each other. More polarization occurs. More reasons are generated for women to argue
with men. Instead of the two genders cooperating to figure out how to best end a
marriage and, more importantly, to figure out how to help children get through the
divorce and live in a broken home, they descend to competing with each other to have
'their side' of the issue prevail. It is all unnecessary and it is all destructive.
Up to fifty years ago, men received custody because, among other reasons, as the
earners of most of the income, they were more able to financially care for their children.
Since then, women have become the overwhelming majority of custodial parents for
several reasons, one being that they were formerly mostly stay-at-home mothers who had
more time to devote to children. There is no biological reason for either sex to have
exclusive custody. Both men and women have the capability to be good parents or bad
parents. But as long as society has a prejudice for deciding that women must be given
custody of their children except in unusual circumstances, men's ability to be excellent
parents will be ignored. Furthermore, any issue of divorce will become a women's issue
that can be seized upon by women's organizations for their own propaganda and profit. It
is hard to know which is worse, both for America and for the individuals caught in the
divorce mess.
If half of the custody allocations were made to fathers and half to mothers, except
for those where joint custody is desirable, there would be no more gender-specific issues
in divorce. Legislators could concentrate on figuring out how to best help both custodial
and non-custodial parents and how to help the children of divorce. They would not have
to worry about opening the door to women's groups to come in and threaten them.
Page 398 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes

. The benefits to society from the elimination of custody prejudice do not stop with
the improvement in divorce legislation. Instead of there being a 'mommy track' that
inhibits women's progress in their careers, both men and women would equally share the
need to have companies and corporations make allowances for child care. Instead of there
being 'deadbeat dads', there would be an equal number of 'deadbeat moms.' Neither sex
would have these issues to polarize around. Instead of men siding against laws to
encourage forced payment of child support and women siding with these laws, both sexes
. could work together to see that all legitimate child support awards were encouraged.
Instead of men struggling to see that visitation enforcement was legislated and women
opposing it, both sexes could cooperate to see that all parents whose presence would
benefit their children would have adequate contact. Instead of men diminishing the role of
child care, they would be encouraging it. Instead of women being forced to decide
between career and children, both men and women would have the same decision to make,
and artificial and unnecessary barriers to melding career and children would dissolve.
Society has already progressed a long way toward seeing that both genders can
contribute fully to all aspects of life, except for one, single, sole, glaring exception. It is
custody. The problem is not the law. Legislation has already been rewritten to eliminate
any gender preference in all aspects of divorce, including custody awards. Only one large
obstacle remains to be eliminated before custody is equalized and all the problems of
mommy track, deadbeat dads, child care insufficiency and other gender issues disappear.
That obstacle is the prejudice of the courts in awarding custody. That single obstacle,
.judicial prejudice, is so strong, however, that it is destroying America by polarizing so
many issues into men's and women's issues. It is like a razor blade cutting the jugular vein
of our country, a tiny action with a tremendous, lethal effect.
To eliminate judicial prejudice in custody awards, only one step needs to be taken.
Legislators must insist by every means possible that the prejudice end now. Each judge
must be ordered to report monthly how many cases that have passed through his or her
court have maternal custody and how many have paternal custody. If they remain
unbalanced toward maternal custody, the judge must be ordered to report what actions he
or she has taken to eliminate such an imbalance. Actions might include gender-
discrimination classes for mediators or custody evaluators, court-ordered pre-divorce
classes in custody and child care for parents of both sexes, denial offees for lawyers who
encourage the imbalance, denial of spousal support for parents refusing to cooperate in
joint custody arrangements, as well as specific decisions made to rectify America's long-
standing prejudice.
Slowly balancing custody awards is not enough. Remedial action must be taken to
correct the problem as soon as possible. Awards of custody should initially be made
preferentially to men in light of the terrible discrimination that men have faced in custody
decisions. No judge should be allowed to shirk this responsibility and allow the gender
polarization in our country to get worse. Our country has many other real problems and
does not deserve to have its future tom apart on the basis of gender because of the
prejudicial decisions of a very small group of very powerful individuals in charge of
divorce courts.
In order to facilitate the passage of such laws, those cases that are exceptions to
the rule of fair custody need to be singled out. Physically or psychologically abusive
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 399

parents clearly do not deserve custody and perhaps no visitation; these unfortunates need
to be filtered out of the custody award process. Parents with serious criminal records or
other reasons why they should not be allowed to be role models for their children need to
be filtered out. Parents with a history of abandonment or neglect need to be likewise
separated out of the process. However, these exceptions can be clearly delineated,
allowing "Fair Custody" laws to be supported by almost all people supporting the best
interests of children. Such legislation needs to be initiated immediately.
Page 400 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDSNotes
KiDDSNotes Version Date: May 29, 1994 Page 401

Appendix A. Groups
Fathers' Rights Groups
Children's Rights Council, 220 I Street, NE, Suite 230, Washington, DC 20002-4362,
(202) 547-6227; Fax (202) 546-4CRC.

Father's Advocacy Information Resource, 1 Northeast 10th St., Milford, DE 1963. (890)
722-FAIR.

Fathers for Equal Rights, Inc., P.O. Box 010847, Flagler Station, Miami, FL 33101-0847.
(305) 895-6351. .

Fathers Rights Association of New York State, P.O. Box 2202, Albany, NY 12220, (800)
YES-DADS {NY only}.

Fathers United for Equal Justice, P.O. Box 1308, Nashua, NH 03061-1308. (603) 624-
6811.

Fathers United for Equal Rights, P.O. Box 3308, Silver Spring, MD 20918-3308. (410)
764-9340.

Joint Custody Association, 10606 Wilkins Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90024-5818., (310)
475-5352.

Men's Rights, Inc., P.O. Box 163180, Sacramento, CA 95816. (916) 484-7333.

National Coalition of Free Men, P.O. Box 129, Manhasset, NY 11030. (516) 482-6378.

National Congress for Men and Children, 2020 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 277,
Washington, DC. 20006-1811. (202) FATHERS. BBS: (602) 840-4752.

National Organization for Changing Men, 794 Penn Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15221. (412)
371-8007.

Parents Association for Custodial Equality, P.O. Box 118, Tulatin, OR, 97062-9459.
(503) 699-8477.

Texas Fathers for Equal Rights, P.O. Box 61249, Houston, TX 77208-1249. (713) 960-
0407.
Page 402 Version Date: May 29, 1994 KiDDS Notes

United Fathers of America, 506 2nd Ave., Smith Tower Suite 1523, Seattle, WA 98104-
2311. (206) 623-5050.

General Groups
Child Find of America, Inc., P.O. Box 277, New Paltz, NY 12561-0277. (800)-I-AM-
LOST {Hotline for abducted children}, (800)-A-WAY-OUT {Mediation line}, (914) 255-
1848, Fax (916) 255-5706.

Concerned United Birthparents, 2000 Walker St., Des Moines, IA 50317. (800) 822-
2777.

HALT/ Americans for Legal Reform, 1319 F St.,NW, Washington, DC 20004-1106,

(202) 347-9600.

Office for Child Support Enforcement and Reference Center, 6110 Executive Blvd.,
Rockville, MD, 20852.

Parents Without Partners, 8807 Colesville Rd., Silver Spring, MD 20910. (301) 588-934.

Victims of Child Abuse Laws, Inc., P.O. Box 329, Gilbert, AZ 85234-9668. (602) 963-
9645.
KiDDS Notes Version Date: May 30, 1994 Page 403

Appendix B. Listing
KiDDS Notes Listing

Before the mCLrriCLge:

Nwnber Title Version Date-
72. Picking your goals. 01103/94
Before starting a relationship, a man should spend enough time thinking through what he
wants to wind up with, whether it be a marriage lasting forever, or just a short relationship.
His goals for children need to be defined and verified as well.
67. Psychological needs in marriage. 01/02/94
One factor that determines if a potential marriage or relationship is likely to break up is the
psychological needs of the partners. Figuring out one's own and one's partner's needs can help
a man make a wise marriage decision.
43. Fear of starting children. 12/30/93
Two sources of fear of starting a family come from rational worries about the possibility of
divorce and the ensuing unhappiness and irrational ones stemming from bad childhood
experiences. Preparation cures one; therapy the other.
35. Short marriage. 12/30/93
So many marriages end after a few years that it might make sense to plan on having a short
one if it meets your goals for a relationship. Figuring out if it does has to take into account
both money and options for children.
73. Women to avoid. 01103194
Women who are likely to cause a divorce to become a long-drawn out disaster of epic
proportions are sometimes identifiable. These, and women whose goal is to be a burden on a
man, should be avoided.

Doing the mCLrnCLge:

Nwnber Title Version Date
29. Test driving your relationship. 01112/94
Living together is a good way to verify that a relationship is stable. Before starting it,
considerations of safety and security, mutual goals, and financial agreements need to be
thought out.
4. Alternative marriage. 12/27/93
Alternative marriage, i.e., marriage by contract rather than by state license, avoids many of [he
problems of divorce courts. This note describes how alternative marriage can be the right
choice for couples who are open and honest with each other.
Page 404 Version Date: May 30, 1994 KiDDS Notes

33. Pre-nuptial agreements. 12/30/93

Writing a pre-nuptial agreement can solve some disputes in case of divorce, but not others.
Breaking the sharing of income rule is one of the most successful areas, and child custody the
absolutely least successful. It is still better to have a one.

During the ma.rric:lge:

Number Title Version Date
5. The second kind of love. 12/16/93
Loving and caring for your child is the most important, most satisfying and most rewarding
thing that any father can do. A new father needs to get ready to do his part in rearing his child
and he has to learn to reprioritize his time.
21. The seventy percent solution. 12/28/93
One thing that destroys the happiness a marriage can bring is a feeling of exploitation. These
feelings are usually unfounded, and there are some thinking exercises that can be done to more
carefully evaluate the balance of contributions.
23. Giving children top priority. 12/28(93
The consumer culture we are immersed in devalues children and parenting, much to the
detriment of both. Young people especially need to be aware of the waste of time and money
on consumer fads, which could have been better spent on their children.
46. The anti-child rut. 12/31/93
Here is a prescription for any man who suffers from a reluctance to spend time with his
children, feeling it is not the proper thing for a real man to do. He needs to understand where
such feelings come from and why they are wrong.
62. Children are never boring. 01/02/94
There is no challenge as ambiguous and as difficult as helping a child reach his or her full
potential. So many factors come into play that there is no limit to the useful effort that can be
applied. It is too bad many men cannot see that and miss out.

PreCQutions for divorce:

Nwnber Title Version Date
42. Buying property. 12/30/93
Some of the biggest hassles in divorce court revolve around competing claims for property.
There is no excuse for not getting this straight at the time of purchase as otherwise the perjury
playground is open for business.
53. Do your own books. 12/31/93
A husband who gives total financial control during his marriage to his wife may be setting
a
himself up for tremendous financial surprise, should his wife decide to take the money and
run. Avoid losses by staying informed.
22. Personal credit. 12/28/93
When the going gets rough, those with substantial individual credit resources may be able to
get through the battles better than those who didn't prepare themselves for it. Get as much as
you can afford.
77. Family debts. 01108194
Money borrowed from a friend or relative can be repudiated in divorce court by an ex-\A, 1 fe
The loan needs to be made legally tight before any divorce action is taken.
KiDDS Notes Version Date: May 30, 1994 Page 405

78. Protecting your records. 01108/94

It may be useful in a divorce to possess good records of your financial affairs. Be careful to
keep good records as the emotional turmoil may prevent your remembering transactions or
accounts, which will slow down court exactions.

During marriage crisis:

Nwnber Title Version Date
80. Salvaging your marriage. 01108/94
The least you should do in a possibly savable marriage is to correctly diagnose the cause of
the breakup, be it an initial misunderstanding, a desire for change, betrayal or boredom. Then
you can figure the cost of marriage repair.
82. Marital counseling. 01108/94
There are many theories of marital counseling, and nothing beats going to several counselors
to find one who works for you and your spouse. Even if counseling fails, you may understand
each other better and have an easier divorce.
83. Trial separation. 01/08/94
Trial separation is when your wife leaves you and you have the chance to take care of your
children. Don't you leave without them or let her take them. If she won't go, spend more
time alone with your kids, they'll like it and you'll improve your attitude.

On the popularity of divorce:

Nwnber Title Version Date
74. The Great American Divorce Profits Machine. 01/03/94
The profits created by divorce in America are enormous, and drive lawyers to maintain the
mystique that divorce law is complicated and has to be very costly. Dividing up possessions
and figuring out custody is not that hard. .
89. The next generation. 01108/94
America's next generation has a large number of children who were reared in mother-headed
households. These have high rates of social problems of every kind. Fathers must get back
their rights to rear their children properly.
71. No education is a bad education. 01/03/94
The great social disaster of divorce could be reduced if young people were required to learn
something about how to maintain a marriage before they graduated from high school. There
are few obstacles to creating such a course.
15. Humane divorce. 12/26/93
There is no intrinsic reason why divorce has to be the nightmare it is now for parents and
children. The exploitation of divorce as a cash cow for the legal profession does not have to
continue if the citizens of the United States don't want it to.
Page 406 Version Date: May 30,1994 KiDDS Notes

Before divorce:
Number Title Version Date
40. The divorce process. 12/30/93
There are four stages to the court processes for a divorce. They are explained here, along
with the places where bias can be introduced. Simplicity covered over by lots of formal rules
describes the process.
68. Separation shock. 01/03/94
If a man is unprepared for the possibility that his marriage might suddenly fall apart, he may
go into shock when served with divorce papers. He needs to think about it and to keep in
contact with others who have gone through it.
85. When to run and when to hide. 01/08/94
A father considering taking his children elsewhere because of the divorce prejudice facing him
has to think carefully and come up with a workable plan. The Underground Railroad did
work, however, and men shouldn't neglect this option.

Beginning c:livorce:
Number Title Version pate
98. Cooperative parenting. 01/14/94
Wouldn't it be nice to bypass all the legal hassles that divorce entails and just figure out how
to live your lives apart and how to care for your children? If your ex is an agreeable person,
this ~ciilimJeHtli~fllamnt.
5tl. Mediated divorce. 01/02/~rson
Doing a divorce without two lawyers arguing, custody evaluators deciding on your children's
future, courts imposing their biases and much money being wasted sounds like a dream come
true. It is, for some people.
41. Preemption in filing. 12/30/93
Filing first has some advantages that depend on where you live, ifboth spouses are still living
together, on how many pro-male lawyers there are, and several other factors. It can make a
tremendous difference or none at all.
1. Should you seek custody? 01/02/94
Many children would be better off if their father took custody of them. This note describes
how to make the decision to try for custody and how to overcome the real fear of becoming a
custodial parent.
11. Searching for a lawyer. 12/19/93
Fairness, justice and equity have little role in divorce court. A father must be prepared to do
whatever is necessary to get custody. Choosing a lawyer is most important, but full of pitfalls
Here are some guidelines.
16. Why lawyers hate kids. 12/27/93
People who go through law school have some personality traits directly opposed to those of
sensitive, caring parents. This explains why lawyers have a hard time appreciating that a
father wants custody for the children's sake.
38. Where do judges come from? 12/30/93
Judges are appointed by the governor after having been recommended by local bar
committees, based on service or contacts. Since there is no practical way of dealing with J
biased judge, it is imperative to find out beforehand and avoid him or her.
KiDDS Notes Version Date: May 30, 1994 Page 407

87. Jealous judges. 01108/94

Are judges above human emotions like jealousy? If you are a candidate for making the judge
feel bad, you should think about finding out the judge's attitudes and feelings and adjusting
your case accordingly.

The pro per option:

Number Title Version Date
39. Going pro per. 12/30/93
There are very many considerations to think about before deciding to go pro per and represent
yourself in court. Some of these are the prejudice against pro pers; another is the time
involved. Here are some guidelines to the benefits and the hazards.
63. Learning the law. 01102/94
There are a multitude of guide books for learning the law related to your specific case. You
can choose the level according to your interests and the amount of time you have available.
Most of it is interesting, as well, provided you like to read.
65. Learning legal process. 01/02/94
It is easier to learn how to do the process of law than to learn the law itself. Process involves
preparing and filing papers, serving them, and other jobs of a legal secretary. More
complicated situations may require you to consult a textbook.
101. Tips for pro per fathers. 01130/94
Being a pro per is hard work, if you plan to do it well enough to win in court. Here are a
series oftips that can help a pro per to get organized at the start of his case, where some of
the worst losses come in.

Doing d.ivorce:
Number Title Version Date
6. Structural bias. 12/16/93
Courts are built around a system of 'equity', which means Dad has the bigger income so Mom
gets the children. Other factors make it almost impossible for a judge to give custody to a
father.
34. Defining fairness. 12/30/93
What is fair to one person at one time is unfair to another person at another time. By any
stretch of the imagination, however, fairness and American divorce are not related to each
other.
69. Why women must have custody. 01/03/94
The financial take for a middle class mother to use the court's biases to gain sole custody is
enormous. Even if she is an incompetent mother, she probably cannot afford to let the
children go to her husband.
17. Unheard arguments. 12/27/93
Fathers often like to collect data on their ex-wives' financial blundering, their blatant
promiscuity or their ill-treatment of their children as arguments for paternal custody. The
court ignores these arguments and presenting them can be damaging.
Page 408 Version Date: May 30, 1994 KiDDS Notes

48. Relative arguments. 12/31/93

Having relatives around to help is of little use in the initial custody hearing, but they have
some very important roles to play in the drama that unfolds after that. Some examples are
listed here.
105. How to complain etTectively. 02110/94
There are many instances during the course of a divorce action that a father might want to
complain. There are some clear rules for complaining that need to be followed for each
person in the system: judges, clerks, lawyers, referees and everyone else.
106. When to call a judge's blutT. 02/10/94
Not every order a judge gives is correctly given or worth enforcing. If one is particularly
unreasonable, you need to check to see if it is a bluff or an error on the judge's part. If so,
there are ways to avoid having it enforced.
60. Reconciliation. 01/02/94
Getting back together again is always a possibility if both people agree to it. The problem is
figuring out if you want it. You need to understand your almost-ex-wife's motivations and
character as much as you didn't before the marriage.

BCiLd
news during divorce:
Number Title Version Date
12. A catalog of crazy ex-wives. 12/19/93
Dealing with an ex-wife out of touch with reality adds to the troubles of divorce. Means of
recognizing such a situation and means of dealing with it are discussed.
9. Dirty tricks. 12/17/93
The ways in which a vindictive ex-wife can hurt her husband, financially and domestically, are
numerous and significant. The husband can even be ordered to pay for most of the cost of
doing them through the vise of legal fees.
13. Rotten tricks. 12/26/93
A man who is accused by his wife of violence against her can expect to be railroaded in court
and lose almost all access to his family and his assets immediately. There is some possibility
of defense, but the real solution to this is public awareness.
57. Abominable tricks. 01102/94
Getting put in jail is not a good way to win at divorce court or to help your children. There
are several ways that men can be set up by ex-wives, and several ways to protect against it.
Be prepared.
76. Sleazy tricks. 01108/94
Falsely charging a father with molestation of his child is a new and despicable tactic in divorce
court. It is often successful, as every card in the deck is stacked against a father in this
situation. Prevention is hard to do. The system must change.
58. Police actions. 01102/94
Police play multiple roles in divorce cases. You need to know when to involve them and if
they get involved at your ex's instigation, you need to know how to react. Never ever provide
a pretext for further charges.
KiDDS Notes Version Date: May 30, 1994 Page 409

Pa.ying for it a.ll:

Number Title Version Date
7. Divorce welfare. 12/16/93
A middle-class divorce may result in the ex-wife living on a form of welfare. The debilitating
effect of that on the woman and the cruelty of imposing it on the man imply the custom should
be terminated immediately.
25. Hard time. 12/29/93
Men go to jail when they remain adamant about refusing orders of prejudiced judges such as
for exorbitant support payments. No defense, no attention and no public support is the usual
result of such imprisonment. And worse can happen.
26. Your scholarship fund. 12/29/93
Would you like to be a donor to a private scholarship fund where you can provide someone
with a free college education? You can do this in some divorce courtrooms if a judge decides
that you need to be taught a little about charity and humility.
44. The pension hatchet. 12/30/93
Your pension does not belong to you unless you protected it before marriage. You need to
understand how an expert calculates its value and how to argue over its value. Lastly; you
need to decide on a buyout.
45. The art of giving. 12/30/93
. Support awards to women sometimes leave men in desperate financial condition. Even in
situations where a woman is capable ofliving without it, support continues. We have an
entire culture to change in order to put an end to these practices.
59. House, house, house! 01102/94
In many marriages, a house is the major asset that a couple entering divorce has. Figuring out
how to keep this from being a major liability to a father is very important in his financial
future. It may depend on custody and, surprisingly, legal fees.
102. How to lower your legal costs. 02/02/94
There are many ways to cut legal costs. Since they often interfere with a father being able to
support himself and his children adequately, all possibilities should be looked at. Some
require the cooperation of a father-oriented lawyer. Others don't.
104. Do you have to pay your lawyer's bills? 02/04/94
Legal bills take a huge bite out of many fathers' assets and incomes, even for years after the
divorce is finished. But it might not be necessary to be absolutely scrupulous about paying
every last cent a lawyer bills.

Doing visitc:a.tion:
Number Title Version Date
92. Weekend Dad. 01/08/94
A father who is restricted to weekend contact with his child needs to do a lot with a little time,
while fighting for more custody. What he should do depends on how much recovery from
divorce the child has done.
103. How to squeeze out more visitation time. 02/03/94
Most men are allotted a small fraction of their child's time to be with them. One response to
this is to gradually increase visitation time, bit by bit, until something more satisfactory is
reached. There are two routes to take to this.
Page 410 Version Date: May 30, 1994 KiDDS Notes

10. He doesn't want to see you. 12/19/93

Doing visitation well'is one of the most common responsibilities of a divorced father. There
are certain guidelines that should be followed with a child, especially involving interference
with his activities and friends.
66. Staying close. 01/02/94
Staying in the neighborhood of his children is the best move that a father can make. He then
can be there when they need him, monitor their care, stay in touch with schools and friends,
and be ready to seek custody if his ex decides to leave the area.
8. Little spies. 12/17/93
Ifvolunteers and private investigators can not resolve your suspicions about abuse or neglect
of your children, can you ask them? Young children, even abused ones, are not reliable. You
need to go slowly.
94. Reporting abuse. 01/08/94
Knowing who to report to and how to document abuse is important for any father to learn.
The realities of abuse reporting and response is also important to know, as it helps a father
know what he must do to end it.
31. Psychological abuse -- the invisible crime. 12/30/93
Physical abuse can be directly stopped by a father who monitors his children. But
psychological abuse is too subtle to be thwarted using the usual legal methods. Only seeking
sole custody, and taking the child away from the abuser ends it.
100. Preventing child sexual abuse. 01/17/94
Fathers need to understand that child sexual abuse is common and that it can be devastating
for a child and lead to a whole host of problems for the child that will last into adult life. He
needs to learn how to protect his children from it.
95. Running away. 01/08/94
For some men, the assault of the courthouse gang is too much to stand; they have to get away
and recover. Here's how to return when motivation and enthusiasm have built back up.
70. Resuming custody or visitation. 01/03/94
A father who comes back into his children's life after an extended period away can expect to
have to spend a long time and a lot of effort rebuilding trust between himself and his children.

Getting custody:
Nwnber Title Version Date
2. Evaluator bias. 12/14/93
In California and many other states, custody decisions are effectively made not by judges but
by custody evaluators. This note describes the prevalent bias they have and how to deal with
it.
14. Kids for sale. 12/26/93
Paying your ex-wife to let you have custody is one way of solving your custody problem.
You have to do it a certain way to make it legal, and to do a lot of work figuring out how to
make the deal watertight.
79. Joint or sole? 01/08/94
Many people advocate joint custody, There arc advantages, and also disadvantages. rlcre arc
some guidelines for making the decision, both at the initial hearing and later. Don't be afraid
to try for sole custody after you have proved yourself
KiDDS Notes Version Date: May 30, 1994 Page 411

81. Long-term pressure. 01/08/94

To gain custody, it is useful to determine a strategy for keeping up the pressure on your ex-
spouse to allow the children to be in your custody for their own best interests, and for her
interests as well. There are many options available to most fathers.
99. The unicorn, the mermaid and the better parent. 01115/94
There is no credible way to pick the better parent from two fit parents unless we decide what
constitutes a better child and a better adult. Custody has to be decided on other grounds.

Protecting your custod.y:

Number Title Version Date
28. Defensive moves. 12/29/93
It is little use to gain custody if you are just going to lose it after a while. You need to think
all the time about what you need to do to keep it. Fortunately, the answer usually is: Be a
good father.
37. Legal custody. 12/30/93
Legal custody gives a non-custodial mother the opportunity to go on fishing expeditions to
find out justification for changing custody back to her. A father needs to know how to. deal
with it, the earlier the better.
90. Temptation. 01/08/94
A non-custodial mother's last chance for custody can occur when her child reaches
adolescence. If the father has not prepared him or her to resist the offer of an easier life, the
child may choose to leave and lose some of the benefits of Dad's teaching.
30. How women avoid paying child support. 12/30/93
Women who do not have custody often benefit by pro-female biases in child support awards.
These awards are often delayed for extended job searches and other excuses, and live-in
girlfriends avoid it completely.

Doing custod.y:
Number Title Version Date
19. Pampering the victims. 12/27/93
A custodial father has to plan on spending plenty of time helping his children recover from
divorce. Learning how children develop and then applying this knowledge daily is the best
way. There is no substitute for quantity time.
356. Blocking visitation. 01/02/94
If a mother is bent on destroying the psychological stability of her children during visitation,
and the court will give them no help at all, a father might simply block visitation. It's not easy,
but neither is helping the children to recover.
2. Playing Mom and Dad. 12/30/93
Any man can learn to communicate with his children and give them both the love and the
discipline they need. Fear of not being able to deal with children is no reason to avoid seeking
custody, or to do it poorly. Human brains are designed for this task.
Page 412 Version Date: May 30, 1994 KinDS Notes

20. Their mother's image. 12/28/93

Never use your children as a battleground for your divorce problems. Instead, be as good a
father as possible and as reassuring and positive about their future as you can be. Children
deserve to be shielded from parental disputes as much as possible.
18. Maternal grandparents. 12127/93
A custodial father has to decide how to deal with his children's maternal grandparents. They
can be a very positive feature of the children's lives. Some caution is necessary, both in setting
ground rules and in monitoring how the contact goes.
27. Sitting with the mothers. 12/29/93
A custodial father might often wonder why so few men show up to take part in their children's
activities, sports excepted. It may be because of the hypnotic effect of television, possibly the
worst disaster that ever happened to children.
47. Good example. 12/31/93
Just being a loving, caring single father provides many good examples to children. It is not
necessary to worry about the little habits of life, if the big ones, of caring for others, of
sacrifice, and of perseverance are there for children to see.
50. Budgeting time. 12/31/93
A new custodial father has to figure out how to manage time better than he ever had to
before. Some hints for planning time and money together are listed here.
64. Child care. 01/02/94
A major headache for custodial fathers is child care, which is very diverse in America. Here a
description of the major categories is listed, along with some tips for evaluating them.
91. The role model job. 01/08/94
Next to providing necessities of life and love and caring, the most important thing a custodial
father can do for his children is to provide them with good role models. Here are some
guidelines.

Doing a remarriage:
Number Title Version Date
52. Another of the same. 12/31/93
Divorce usually means a mistake was made in understanding the person you married. To
avoid making a second mistake, a lot of time need to be spent probing the personality of any
prospective spouse.
51. Protecting your children in remarriage. 12/31/93
The most important point for a custodial father to check when courting a new wife is to
determine if she will be abusive to his children. If he makes a mistake, there has to be a
second divorce, as children can not be sacrificed for any purpose.
49. Blended families. 12/31/93
Remarriage for a custodial father involves figuring out, in advance, how a new mother and her
children, ifany, will be able to integrate into the lives of him and his children. Several items of
concern are listed here.
61. Prenuptials for the formerly married. 01/02/94
Anyone seeking to write a prenuptial needs to think in advance of the result of it for his
children and grandchildren. If he does not, and instead follows the advice of his bride's lawver
or financial advisor, he is likely to be taken advantage of.
 KiDDS Notes Version Date: May 30, 1994 Page 413

Fa.thers' rights groups:

Number Title Version Date
3. Join a Cathers' rights group! 12/14/93
Men in divorce court are simply cannon-fodder. Only by banding together into groups and
fighting for equality and justice will our children be rescued from this tyranny. This note
describes how to join or organize a group and what to do with one.
24. Proving bias with statistics. 12/29/93
One project a non-political men's rights group could do would be to take data on what one
prejudiced judge does in the area of custody awards. A single extensive history of his
decisions might spur our legislatures to investigate the problem everywhere.
55. Shining a spotlight on bigots. 01102/94
One man against the divorce court system is like one bee against a bear stealing honey. It
I necessary to get all the bees out of the hive and stinging mad in order to get the bear's
attention.
88. Top tasks for fathers' rights groups. 01108/94
A fathers' rights group can specialize in one of these tasks: counseling new victims of divorce,
referrals to lawyers and others, maintaining a judge and evaluator data base, establishing
connections with state/national groups, lobbying the legislature.
97. Get ofTthe floor and start punching. 01112/94
Put the anger and frustration that you feel every time you are deprived of your children and
the fruits of your hard work to good use. Join a fathers' rights group and work to cure the
system that treated you so badly. You'll feel better for it.

The big picture:

Number Title Version Date
36. An end to social prejudice. 12/30/93
Young fathers are ignoring the fact that men aren't supposed to take care of babies and small
children. They are the vanguard of a revolution that is going to turn the judicial world of
maternal custody prejudice upside down.
75. A history of marital property. 01103/94
The rules by which property is divided up in a marriage vary greatly from state to state, but
they usually have a strong component of sharing marital earnings. Learning the law before
acquiring property would be a good idea.
84. Father's rights. 01108/94
Since the dawn of civilization, fathers have had the right to determine the care of their
children, except if they were slaves. In mid-twentieth century America, men became slaves
It's time to throw off the chains and take back men's natural rights.
86. Dumber than Marxism. 12/30/94
Depriving the majority of divorced fathers of custody is a foolish experiment and our nation's
equivalent of Marxism. Demotivating large numbers of men drags our economy down and
makes us all suffer, that is, all except for the vultures of divorce court.
Page 414 Version Date: May 30, 1994 KiDDS Notes

93. Examples from elsewhere. 01108/94

Other nations have figured out how to do divorce, and not all of them follow the American
model. We can learn how to simply eliminate most of the antagonism between ex-spouses,
which lets them cooperate on child-rearing.
96. Fair custody laws. 01108/94
If there were no prejudice against fathers in divorce court, and custody went to both genders
equally, most of the problems of deadbeat dads, the mommy track, child care limitations and
others hindering children and parents would go away. Judges are the key.
WARNING! Advertisement WARNING! Advertisement WARNING! Advertisement

ProbleDlS don't solve theDtSelves. Divoree isn't going t4)get

any better unless people do something about it. What ean
you do to ease the diffien1ties that men have faeing divoree
and in gaining eustody of their ehildren?
You ean:

Spread the wurdt

• Know someone about to get married?

• Is someone you know thinking about getting separated?
• Have a friend worrying about the next step in his divorce?
• Know somebody puzzling about why everything went wrong for him at court?
• Know someone facing grevious financial impositions ordered by a divorce court
judge?
• Is an acquaintance worried about keeping custody of his children?
• Want to try and open the eyes of your state representatives to the plight of divorced
fathers?

Send a eopy of the KiDDS Notes to them.

Send this page to KiDDS, P.O. Box 1513, Pleasanton, CA 94566-0151.

KiDDS:
Send a copy of the latest KiDDS Notes to

Name:

Street Address:

City, State, Zip code:

I enclose a check or money order for $22.50, tax included, made out to KiDDS. Orders
are fulfilled in eight weeks or less, although KiDDS tries for two.

WARNING! Advertisement WARNING! Advertisement WARNING! Advertisement