Family Law: Conspiracy against Fathers

July 28, 2013


The justice system undermine families while enriching lawyers and social workers.

"Nowadays men are guests in their own homes." writes Richard Doyle. "Fathers are becoming intimidated afraid to dispense discipline, afraid of offending wives (or even the children) and of being evicted as a consequence."

by Richard F. Doyle

("Open Letter to the Legal Profession"

abridged by

This article is directed at domestic relations judges and lawyers, on behalf of hundreds of thousands of divorced men and fathers. ...

Nowadays, men are but guests in their own homes. evict-able at a mere whim of their wives, with no practical recourse, unless they are wealthy. Thanks to "no fault" laws, there is no right or wrong; anything goes. Husband #1 can be kicked out to make room for #2, or so a wife can "find herself." For all practical purposes fathers can forget about obtaining child custody. You couldn't do much more damage to a child than to sentence him or her to life in a single-mother household.

Just a cursory examination of Men's Defense Assoc. files shows the following

  • 2/3ds to 3/4ths of divorces are initiated by wives, justifiably expecting to be awarded custody, alimony (largely disguised as "child support"), the house, etc.

  • 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.

  • 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes.

  • 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.

  • 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes.

  • 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.

  • 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes.

  • 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes.

  • 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.

These statistics translate to mean that children from a fatherless home are:

  • 5 times more likely to commit suicide.

  • 32 times more likely to run away.

  • 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders.

  • 14 times more likely to commit rape

  • 9 times more likely to drop out of high school.

  • 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances.

  • 9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution.

  • 20 times more like to end up in prison

Why are these children fatherless? Because their fathers ran away? Not very often. More often they were evicted by a judge pandering to a disgruntled, defecting wife.

To quote from Professor Emeritus Daniel Amneus, USC, Los Angeles:

"A judge may try a divorce case in the morning and place the children in the mother's custody. He may try a criminal case in the afternoon and send a man to prison for robbing a liquor store. The chances are three out of four that the criminal he sends to prison grew up in a female headed household just like the one he himself created that morning when he tried the divorce case. He sees no connection between the two cases."

It would make more sense to jail divorce court judges and other system-connected culprits than the young criminals their policies have created.

Fathers in intact families are becoming intimidated. afraid to dispense discipline, afraid of offending wives (or even the children) and of being evicted as a consequence. The forcible removal, and probable alienation, of one's own children is almost the greatest crime that could be committed against a person.

"The State" does it to men routinely. Suicides among male divorce victims are very high. Many, if not most, skid row men are divorced.

Prejudice harms children as much as fathers, if differently. Even if they were so motivated, all the cops and social workers in the world can't replace millions of evicted fathers, the natural disciplinarians. Unless these trends are reversed, the ghetto will become the pattern for our society.

What motivates judges to render such brutal, stupid decisions? Public opinion? Fear of political incorrectness? Indiscriminate chivalry? Fantasizing themselves as Galahads rescuing damsels from distressful marriages? Probably all of these. Admittedly judges are largely following the dictates of widespread public prejudices, but that is no excuse for ignoring all principles of justice and Constitutional law.

Torn loose from any pretense of equity, divorce practice is the single most egregious and overlooked form of wealth redistribution in America today. And its scope is rapidly increasing. Thanks to judicially-provided incentives, half of all marriages end up in the trash heap.

The law profession shows little interest in reforming such a lucrative system, despite its epidemic ravaging of society. Why should they? The take is around $200 billion per year, perhaps the biggest in the entire profession. Removing the incentives would threaten the racket; any judges so inclined would soon find themselves seeking another field of endeavor.

According to Professor Stephen Baskerville of Howard University, "They (judges) sit at the top of a very large patronage network. And they can dole out a father's income and many other goodies to an assortment, an entourage, of judicial courtiers who also profit from having children taken away from their parents... St. Augustine said that 'without justice, States are nothing but great robberies; and this is exactly what we are seeing in divorce courts. If States have the power, if government has the power to seize control of children, and micromanage the private lives of citizens who have done nothing wrong, there is no stopping the State."

Nor can we look to "law" itself for immediate relief. The halls of Congress are crawling with taxpayer-funded feminist lobbyists seeking ever more favor for women; sycophantic or complicit lawyer-legislators are giving it to them - at the expense of men, children and families.

"Non-support," and "Deadbeat Dad" have become the ubiquitous battle-cry of the sanctimonious.

Certainly fathers have a responsibility to support their children; but does this continue to apply when a father's children have been forcibly taken away and, in many cases, effectively brainwashed against him? Civil disobedience seems the only option of a poor man. When Big Brother so completely runs a man's family, shouldn't Big Brother also assume the man's other obligations? Like mules need hay, fathers must have enough left of their paycheck to eat, pay rent, keep warm, get to work, and (Heaven forbid) maybe raise another, more loyal family.

Draconian alimony and child support measures are like the Maginot line, a mighty fortress with guns pointed in the wrong direction. The solution is not to persecute men further but to begin treating them fairly. This would have two desirable results. First, around half of divorced fathers would have custody.

Second, those who didn't, being treated fairly, would be much more inclined to pay their just obligations.

Fairness to men is the ONLY measure that hasn't been tried extensively. Where it has been tried, even in a limited manner as in shared parenting, support collections have increased dramatically. All other measures have failed - and will continue to fail.

Delay is costly. Even immediate restoration of rights and authority to fathers will take generations to repair the damage.

For over 30 years all appeals to reason have fallen upon deaf ears, and produced only lip service to equal treatment under the law. The MDA hopes the culprits responsible for the present unacceptable situation will clean up their own houses, so that this burden does not devolve upon victims. But if it does, so be it. There is a rising groundswell of justifiable anger and resentment, enough to make Shay's Rebellion look like a picnic. It would not be prudent to ignore Les Miserables. Heaven forbid that Dick,

The Butcher (in King Henry the Sixth, IV, ii 86) had the right idea. These words are harsh, but how else can one adequately address harsh realities'?

Beneath the corruption, our political institutions are creations of wise and prudent men, and repositories of much that is good. It is these very institutions that make our society function, however imperfectly.

Contrary to Marx, we should build a superior social order upon the basic structure, rather than the ruins, of the old.


Thanks to Tony B for sending this.

First Comment by Asim:

Read your latest article with sadness and can only agree 100% with what Richard has to say. I work with vulnerable and disaffected young males for a local council, and unfortunately, over here in the UK, we have made a complete profession out of the misery of such broken fatherless families.

I case manage up to 25 young males with multiple barriers and every single one of them-ex-offenders/drug addicts/mental health issues-have come from a fatherless home. Yet what is most tragic, is that they are forced to seek 'help' from other professionals, or be sanctioned by the state.

Most of these 'professionals' are women, who, for a lot of them, themselves have come from broken relationships. I have referred many young males to see social workers who are butch, male hating lesbians, and the shock and horror expressed on these poor lads faces says it all.

Many jobs are wholly dependent on the breakdown of such families and such strategies are set in place to ensure that this remains the case. As an example, one of my young males aged 13 currently has a social worker; youth offending officer; education welfare officer; educational psychologist; school counsellor; young people's support worker; youth worker; connexions personal adviser;  mental health nurse and clinical psychologist. Say no more!!!!!

Second Comment from Michael:

How true Mr. Doyle.....Not only have I witnessed this atrocity as a Police Officer and Court Investigator for 30 years plus.....but I have had the pleasure to be evicted from my home by my then wife of 19 years.... who was and is a Social Worker who has done work in the past as a Guardian Ad Litem in probate and family custody issues....

When she turned 41 and decided she was 21 again....and realized additional men met her needs..she requested a divorce and that I leave my children and home...I refused to leave..And.

Over the period of 6 or 7 months I was there 24/7 with my children as she explored her new enlightenment...finally I agreed to leave and was granted an order by the court for custody of one of my children and was to leave on a Monday...on the previous Friday afternoon I arrived home and was packing my car with my daughter when three police vehicles appeared with three very prejudiced Law Enforcement Officers..two women with a Restraint Order and Order to Leave The Premises Immediately...

.She had lied to the court informing them I was abusive and had numerous weapons in the residence....She had this done in front of my three children in an effort to make me appear a danger...Not only did the Officers look throughout the house...They conducted and Illegal search of my vehicle.  .My daughter and I left and my son soon followed...They have chose to live with me...In the Law Enforcement world we call this the "Weekend Annulment" as on Saturday one of her many boyfriends ...a Social Worker himself...came to visit her..

.This incident backfired as the children who are young teenagers were going to testify against her and her behavior...I thank God everyday for her stupidity and selfishness....A word to all Police Officer's....the RO will come during a battled custody issue......

Comments for "Family Law: Conspiracy against Fathers"

David said (July 29, 2013):

This confirms (as if such empirically obvious facts needed confirmation) that the healthiest and most wholesome environment for a child to be raised in is a home with a mother AND a father. A man and woman united in love and holy matrimony COMPLETE the safe haven a child needs to grow up in this insane mad world.

The man and woman are two halves of a WHOLE, they each bring a different perspective and essential role to the daunting task of raising children to be able to COPE with real life, and not become burdens on the rest of society such as we have today. That everything in government and the legal industry is working relentlessly to destroy this basic unit of human civilization is, I think, proof that a Satanic elite is in charge of human affairs at this time in history. I cannot imagine a more insidious evil than the conscious destruction of the nuclear family.

Barry said (July 29, 2013):

This is an excellent piece by Richard Doyle although he falls short by failing to mention the architects of the NWO as the main driving force behind the destruction of the monogamous family. In my view, Marxists, feminists, judges, lawyers, psychologists, social workers, and those who visibly wage war on fathers are merely pawns on the grand geo-political chessboard.

The real movers and shakers hide behind the curtain, doling out cash to whoever will further their agenda of family destruction. Interestingly, the fathers movement who should have the greatest interest in these matters, seems to be way behind the curve.

Not only are they afraid to mention the new world order, the majority of fathers’ rights activists are reluctant to accept that feminism has played a huge role in the demise of the family. After almost 40 years I think it’s time for the fathers movement to come out of the closet.

Of course they are concerned about public perception and wish to remain credible. Frozen in fear of being labelled conspiracy theorists, the fathers movement cannot do what needs to be done. Identify the enemy.

Bruce said (July 29, 2013):

Your point leaves out one salient fact. Radical feminism is an offshoot of Marxist communism. Communists have supported radical feminism since it's inception. Betty Friedan was the founder of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in 1966. She and her husband were card-carrying members of the communist party in the U.S.

Marxist feminism is a sub-type of feminist theory which focuses on the social institutions of private property and capitalism to explain and criticize gender inequality and oppression. According to Marxist feminists, private property gives rise to economic inequality, dependence, political and domestic struggle between the sexes, and is the root of women's oppression in the current social context. Hence, the reason women get everything in the divorce: the assets, the husband's income, the children. These things all constitute "private property" and economic inequality. Therefore, the word "equitable distribution". Equitable does not mean "equal". It could mean 90%-10% distribution of assets and private property.

Marxist feminism's foundation is laid by Friedrich Engels in his analysis of gender oppression in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State (1884). He argues that a woman's subordination is not a result of her biological disposition but of social relations, and that men's efforts to achieve their demands for control of women's labor and sexual faculties have gradually solidified and become institutionalized in the nuclear family.

In her article The Planned Destruction of the Family, Erin Pizzey touches on the fact that the rhetoric and tactics of radical feminists are firmly rooted in communist ideological traditions (including terrorism - that includes terrorist bombings). In my mind the tactics and strategies of the radical feminists differ little from those used by the Nazis in the twenties and the early thirties, when they squelched their political opponents in their quest for power.

However, Erin Pizzey also described that posters of Mao and Guevera were featured prominently in the living rooms of the middle-class, white, radical feminists who eventually usurped her Chiswick women's refuge and that these women liberally used communist phraseology in their rhetoric, even to the extent that they distributed copies of "The Little Red Book."

Christina Hoff Sommers, in her book " Who Stole Feminism?", compared some of the excesses of feminism that affect academe to Maoist purges ­ to the extent that they now dominate all of our universities.

Check the following links:

Even the Europeans acknowledge family court judges are communists:

Associated Press
January 9, 2013

ROME (AP) ­ Milan court officials defended the impartiality of their judges on Wednesday after ex-Premier Silvio Berlusconi blamed "feminist, communist" magistrates for what he said was a €200,000 ($260,000) a day divorce settlement.

Berlusconi made the accusation in an interview Tuesday with the La7 private television network, his latest in a series of media appearances ahead of Italy's Feb. 24-25 elections.

Italian media initially reported that Berlusconi's divorce from his second wife Veronica Lario would cost him €36 million a year. That figure amounts to €3 million a month, or about €100,000 a day.

But Berlusconi said the figure, with arrears, was double that. While he didn't fully explain how he got to a €200,000 a day figure, he said he was ordered to pay Lario €36 million a year, with another €72 million in arrears.

Bruce Eden, Civil Rights Director
DADS (Dads Against Discrimination)
Wayne, New Jersey

Len said (July 29, 2013):

RE: Family Law: Conspiracy against Fathers

Outstanding and informative article, Henry.
The depreciation and degradation and oppression of men, husbands, and
fathers is absolutely one of the most sinister and evil things that the elite
"social engineers" have been up to in the past 50 years and more.

Now it has reached a point of "doing a way with fathers" almost altogether.

I am against the oppression of women; but equally: I am against the oppression and degradation of men, husbands and father: and the latter is FAR MORE widespread than most people realize.
It's evil. VERY evil.

Tony said (July 29, 2013):

The article marks the dangers of women raised men (and women) only by implication.

Western women generally are out of place, out of control and pretty much worthless. A definite drag on all of society.

The miseducaton starts with girls as soon as they are in some sort of controlled environment - pre-school baby-sitting, kindergarten, 1st grade. Almost all teachers up to and through puberty grades are women. Most of them dumber than stones but feminist to the core. Which is an oxymoron anyway. The principals, if men, are not really men. More like opportunistic ex-jocks. Again, dumber than stones. Girls in these places can do no wrong and soon become crass, foul mouthed, utterly without common courtesy, sloppy hogs while the boys are treated as criminals simply because they are boys.

I work in a school, this is not assumption but daily observed facts.

Kris said (July 29, 2013):

Your article about family law is spot on here in Australia too.i've been through it myself here. Its a business for the lawers, but there is a bigger agenda behind it all.

The satanic nwo wants to break up three major things and they are as follows.

1. Remove God, eg seperation of church and state, removal of prayer from schools,removal of christmas decorations from public display etc etc.

2.Destroy the family unit. Eg family law, perversion of marriage by gay marriage.demoralize youth through sex and porn and music/movies,easy divorce for women,feminism, etc etc.

3.Destroy Nations- nationalism and cultural identity ,eg sovereign identity, through multiculturalism ,supporting all minority groups and give power to them.

This is all happening in all the so called west.
I belive that the first two wars gave the nwo control of europe through the UN and EU .The main goal was to wipe out christian opposition especially in easter europe. Now the war in the west is on a subconscious level whereas the war in the middle east is bloody and brutal as was is europe during world war 1 and 2 ,and once again the christians and all innocent people opposing tyrany are being buchered .

This on par with Albert Pike's 3 world wars prediction. Just like in europe pit all christians nations against each other until complete and utter exhaustion then offer them a peace plan -subconscious and financial tyrany. Isnt this same thing unfolding in the middle east right now?

JV said (July 29, 2013):

Family Law: Conspiracy against Fathers

I call Canada "Taliban North", where men are treated like women are by the Taliban

Elaine said (July 29, 2013):

I've seen how this works, up close and personal. I've spent thousands of dollars to a particular lawyer seeing how this works "up close and personal." It's a hatchet job on men - pure and simple, disguised to destroy the family.

Omar said (July 29, 2013):

When the author mentioned that these fatherless homes are not primarily due to fathers running away from responsibility I started laughing. The high incidence of crime, suicide, and the other plagues of a fatherless home and the statistical percentages that the author mentions are about the same as the rates of crime and suicide in the inner city.

Most of these fatherless children do have dead beat dads.

Nice try though by the author trying to link inner city problems on divorce and a corrupt judicial system. Most of the kids there are children of unwed mothers and don't even know who their dads are because mom doesn't even know for sure.

JG said (July 28, 2013):

This is very definitely a premeditated assault by the legal profession and their atheist bosses to take a wrecking ball to the American Family Unit by making it profitable and convenient for a wife to divorce her husband.
When the Church was evicted from law and government by the ACLU the Spirit of God left with it. There is no more "rhyme or reason" to the courts decisions concerning divorce other than profit and destruction.
It is that very same agenda of profit and destruction that has now become America's new foreign policy.

What is unjust, immoral, and destructive is the doctrine that rules our governmental institutions today.

Corruption is a cancer that spreads and is not cured by compliance and monetary support. You don't feed cancer to cure it and calling this cancer your best friend and only ally seals your fate of destruction.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at