by Jim Loose
Date: 8/2/02 12:16:28 PM Central Standard Time
From: Lacey Carey
To: Jim Loose
Hi (yes we're still friends...barely) Jim:
I can't say I buy everything your last email said, but I do believe in giving the devil his due. I hope that's enough for right now.
Let me throw another thought at you. YOU wrote ;-) : "In a fair legal regime, naturally there'd be ample room for a parent who honestly believes the other parent is truly unstable to come into court and demonstrate it." My experience from my court is that they don't care to do that. It's all "he says, she says" to them. They don't know who to believe and it's too expensive to find out, so they just push them out the door. Your idea sounds good, but it's not being used and so isn't it irrelevant as a practical matter?
One thing your emails have convinced me of is this: you really do love that little girl of yours. She's lucky to have you for her father. Comfort yourself with that. However difficult things are for you, Jim, you should know that things are going to work out for you in the end. I had a great daddy. All through my growing up, I turned to him all the time for his wisdom and strength. Trust me, your daughter's going to turn to you too. It's wonderful to see a man care so much for his child.
Date: 8/2/02 7:09:02 PM Central Standard Time
From: Jim Loose
To: Lacey Carey
How Ya Doin'? (Said in best Joisey impression.)
So now I'm the devil???
I'm going to dive right into the issues you brought up.
Concerning going to court and showing instability you write: "My experience from my court is that they don't care to do that. It's all ' he says, she says' to them. They don't know who to believe and it's too expensive to find out, so they just push them out the door."
Isn't that good in a certain respect? Shouldn't the evidentiary bar be awfully high? After all, we are talking about parents AND THEIR CHILDREN. We tend to require pretty strong evidence of crime before we take a person's monetary assets from him as a result of a trial. Aren't children more important than money?
Another issue opened by your question is Presumption. Presumption raises its head in two ways. First, if there is no showing of instability on the part of the male parent, why the out-of-proportion distribution of custody?
Second, even though the citizens of Texas (like citizens in states all over the U.S.) through the branch of government called the Legislature (which passes the laws that courts are supposed to enforce -- sorry for the civics primer) have expressed their will that the gender of parents be excluded from consideration in making custody decisions during a divorce, it's a fact that courts award the bulk of children's time to mothers. What let's them get away with flouting the will of the people in an American democracy? What allows them to practice what amounts to judicial tyranny? Something called the doctrine of Judicial Discretion. Judicial Discretion means that a judge can do anything she wants in her courtroom, the law or anything else be damned. There are things that can be done about this...but they're difficult. What I intend to do with the 325th is: Protest their practice of Gender Apartheid. In due time I'll hand out printed materials at the courthouse and door to door if necessary. I'll write articles to be published in the Fort Worth Star Telegram and other papers and magazines around the country. I'm already writing a book on Gender Apartheid. I'll find an impeachment sponsor to remove the current bench occupants of the 325th. I'll file a civil suit that asks a federal judge to assume supervision of the 325th because of its statistical pattern of discrimination. I'm even willing, at a severe pass, to go on hunger strike and sit every day the 325th is in operation on the steps of the courthouse to let people see what the concentration camp justice of one family court is doing in America. On weekends I would move my strike outside the homes where the judges live.
Cloaked in Judicial Discretion, the judges of the 325th presume in favor of women in child custody. This means there is actually a burden is on men merely to get equal treatment. Ridiculous. This not only flouts the will of the part of our government that's supposed to set the ground rules we all play by (the Legislature) it's grotesquely unfair. In America, it's wrong to discriminate in the workplace on the basis of race or gender. It's just as wrong to discriminate against men domestically based on their gender. Until family courts start presuming equality, we've got massive discrimination on its face. To understand my behavior in the light (actually, dark) of this, it's necessary to ask yourself only two questions: What if your judge told you that from now on you could have custody of your children only two days out of every fourteen? Is there ANYTHING you wouldn't do to fight that?
You write: "It's wonderful to see a man care so much for his child."
Thanks so much for saying that. It means a heck of a lot to me. But I have to ask you a question in return. Do you truly think I love my daughter more than most men love their children? I don't think I do. Maybe I'm a little more ornery with my court than some men who finally get tired of getting stomped on and just give up. Maybe I'm a little more clever in spotting the weak points in the enemy's game. But I'm positive I'm average as far as love goes. Don't you think that most men would lay down their lives for their children? I do. And according to one highly regarded source: "Greater love hath no man than this, that he would lay down his life..." If the person who said that is right, most men love their children as much as humanly possible.
Copyright � 2003
FatherMag.com, a trademark of Fathering Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved.
retain their right to republish elsewhere.