? for DRC

Having spent more than my fair share of time in the court since my divorce, I have had many conversations with other men and attorneys. Each and every one of them says the same thing, about our local court, "every man that walks in here has a target on his back".

If justice is blind, why do I hear this as often as I do? Don't tell me that the guys are all deadbeats and that the women all have better attorneys. I know that this is not true and my life has proven that. If her attorney was so good than how did I get the deal that I did? I was the one that negotiated the deal with her attorney while my attorney sat at my side. I came close to having her pay me alimony, but was told to back off because we had gotten everything that we had set out to get. I was told that afterward by my attorney that I had gotten the best deal he had every seen a man get.

My attorney did draft the custody agreement but I modified it heavily to be fair to all parties involved. I caught things that would have given one or the other parent a greater time with my son. Grandparents were given consideration, as was where he would attend school.
When my divorce took place, shared parenting was so new that there were no examples to work from. Howard Calhoun, sir, you did a beautiful job. We broke new ground and I want to keep breaking it.

In the past in this county, the only way that a man got more than the typical weekend visits were if the mother was a drug addict or in jail. Even then it was not a sure thing for the man. Men walked in a gave up their rights because they were told that they didn't stand a chance because the courts sided with the mother no matter what was in the best interest of the children.

I want someone to explain to me why the judges keep siding with the mothers. Federal law prohibits discrimination because of race, handicap or sex. How can a domestic relations judge get away with allowing their bias to influence their decisions? How can a domestic judge get away with failing to follow the Constitution that they are sworn to up hold? Read the oath you took when you were sworn into office. If the bias doesn't exist, then open the records and prove it.

I know this bias is real within the court and their support system. In a resent interview with a Family Court Services Evaluator, I saw it in person. In a recent meeting with Family Court Services, my ex offered me a standard custody agreement with her as the primary parent. I said no. I was told to make her a counter offer. I offered her the same thing that she had offered me but with me as the primary parent. The evaluator exclaimed, " that is less than she has now!" What? A man can be offered less and it is all right but if she is offered less then it is wrong. That is sexual bias. If it exists at that level of the court then it exists at all.

And you as judges have proved that you also have biases that should not exist by allowing false testimony to be entered and fathers to be forcibly separated from their children. Take the case of Kevin Rice, falsely accused of child molestation. He has presented evidence to you that these are false, yet you still refuse to allow him to visit his children. You refuse to put his accuser through the same hoops that you have him. When are you going to follow the law and respect the truth? Yet you claim to be acting in the best interests of the children. How are the best interests of a child being served when you allow false testimony and forbid a father from seeing his children?

It is time to put and end to this now. If you won't do it, I know a few parents that are willing to do it for you. It is time that you start to take the oath of office seriously.This is a new century and it is time for this to end NOW! I am one father that will not back down from his rights.