Expert Advice When You Need It Most

The Problem with Parent Fairness Groups

Written by: Peter Christopher Lomtevas

Reputation Level 14

Family

Posted over 2 years ago. Applies to New York, 0 helpful votes, 0 comments

Save

Share with:

The Hypothetical

Our hypothetical starts with mom as the custodial parent and dad as the visiting parent. Dad, Bob Jones, joined a Father’s Rights group well known in the community for its advocacy for men. Bob is extremely dissatisfied with the deal he got in court. CAPTA techniques were foisted upon him: a psychologist said he had a sex addiction and viewed child pornography at his place of employment. The Child Support Standards Act matching funds ensured his loss of the custody of his child and mom took all the prizes from court. Dad gets supervised visitation at a court approved supervised and therapeutic visitation facility known as “You Too Can succeed” for $100 per hour cash only. However, the order was poorly written and dad was able to seize the boy and take him to another county. Mom went after the boy. Because the order was very unclear about when mom had her parenting time, the police could not enforce the order. Bob kept the child.

Where is the Legal Advice Coming From?

Now follows certain behavior on the part of Bob. We do not know which of these behaviors were actually programmed by the Father’s Rights group and which are of Bob’s own creation. Stated another way, the Father’s Rights group may have been committing the crime of the unauthorized practice of law (Section 6512 of the Education Law makes it a felony for any individual or entity to practice a profession without a license), or Bob may have been engaged in the tort of abuse of process. We do not know for sure. However, we are about to see what Bob does and reflect upon which source is responsible. Bob filed for an Order of Protection against the mother in Bob’s county. Bob appeared in court and asserted that mom is violent and is a drug dealer. These assertions score points in court as the court is charged with child protection: protection against physical abuse and protection against drug abuse.

Taught About the Offensive Use of Orders of Protections?

Bob now placed mom at risk for arrest. Bob did not to serve the mother and asserts he did by filing a false affidavit of service. Bob returned to court with documents alleging to show that the child was enrolled in local schools, lived with Bob and enjoyed life in the county. The child said he hated his mother. The judge in the new county granted a temporary order of custody to Bob. Mother filed a petition in the new county. The judge had the parties sign an order of reference to a Magistrate which Bob and the mother signed.

Taught to Manipulate a Child?

The parties appear before the Magistrate and mom gets supervised visits which the child refuses to attend. The visitation center prepares reports describing the child’s aversion to his mother. The Magistrate orders forensics. The child convinces the psychologist he wants nothing to do with the mother. Bob brings the child to six supervised visits with the psychologist and the results are the same. By now Bob fails to appear in court and the Magistrate flips custody to mother. Mom’s attorney asserts that Bob is pulling tricks. Bob informs the Magistrate that the child refuses to get in the car to come to court and that Bob is on disability and has a serious bone injury.

Taught to Remain Away from Court?

The Magistrate adjourns the case for months at a time. Mom does not see her child. Finally, a hearing takes place with all parties present. Bob’s first argument is the Mother is unfit for contacts with the boy: Her history of abuse of drugs where she brought him to the drug dealer’s house every Saturday morning to buy drugs. Bob makes an assertion that the psychologist backs up Bob: I spoke with Dr. Smarts, he spoke with my child. He wrote a letter over here and said that he would not recommend at this time any visitation. Bob said that mother punched him in the face. Bob said to the court that he wanted to make sure the court was liable for any injuries to the child at the hands of his mother if the court gives the boy to the mother.

Taught to Pull the Various Cards: Psychological, Sexual, Substance Abuse and Child Neglect/Abuse?

Bob said: Once she actually threatened to hit herself and say I did it and I had to call the County police. They arrested and later committed her. Bob said: She wanted to kill men. She hated men called them dogs in front of my child. Bob said what the child said: Please don’t send me home, she’s going to kill me because I was not supposed to say anything about the drug dealer. Bob said: To meet this person where she would exchange stacks of hundreds and baggies with white stuff in it. Bob said: I have evidence of seventeen years of psychiatric problems, three committed. There’s one from my house where she was committed. Bob said of what the child said: his exact words were for as long as I can remember, there’s no limit to mommy’s violence. She’s the monster, my house is the forest where mommy comes.

Taught to Fabricate Evidence?

Bob brought up the F.B.I. When the Magistrate refused to listen to Bob’s allegations about the mother, Bob asked the court to “recuse” itself. That’s the act of leaving the case and having the Clerk of court assign another jurist. Bob then demands a taxpayer funded attorney. The Magistrate denies him one and Bob alleges that court is denying him his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. When the Magistrate orders Bob into psychological evaluation, Bob responds that he will not participate with a psychologist because of his rights under the Fifth Amendment against self incrimination. Again, we are not certain which of the above statements were given to Bob to say and which were of Bob’s own creation. All we want to get from all this has to do with pulling a fraud on oneself and then pulling a fraud on the court.

What the Groupie's Failures Were?

The message is that no one should seek legal advice from non legally trained people. Bob should not have addressed the court the way he did and should not have taken the child and filed for an order of protection against the mother. Once in court, Bob should not have disappeared with the child and should have communicated with the court tactfully. Bob should have had reliable evidence to give to the court to back his assertions: every assertion gets a piece of evidence. Bob had none. Remember that petitions to expand visitation are available without the guerrilla tactics and there are trustworthy attorneys who will make the proceedings go smoothly and predictably. Here, Bob took the law into his own hands based upon what may have been terribly erroneous advice and ruined his chances of ever succeeding in that county’s court again. The child lost his father.

Attorneys Become Victimized

The parents fairness group also taught Bob that attorneys are disposable. Bob learned that lawyers have an iron clad confidentiality rule that means Bob can insult his lawyer to his group but the lawyer cannot fight back. Bob even had a thug "speak" with the lawyer out of the view of others threatening the lawyer with "disbarment" if the lawyer did not see the case Bob's way. When the lawyer filed for relief from representation, Bob began to badmouth his lawyer saying the lawyer failed to do his job. Eventually, these groups do learn that a lawyer can defend him/herself and the results can be quite painful.

Society and the Courts Suffer

These antics cause the courts to have to defend against unnecessary assault and ridicule. This causes regular parents to have to suffer the court's wrath and endure further the problems the public is suffering: loss of children, over imputation of child support, supervised visitation and so on. Be very careful whenever you navigate the court system no matter which county, no matter which state. Federal preemption of family law has opened the field for charlatan groups who claim to dispense good advice. Don't ever go to court on a lay person's advice. Retain competent counsel and stick to him/her. Nothing can ruin a case better than not trusting your own attorney while trusting a group of fairness seekers who otherwise know nothing of the law and dare to practice it by remote control on you.