practical guides

This book would have been better if it had been called "If You're a Dad, Stay Out of Court If You Can."

With the increase in divorce and changes in way men want to be spend time with their kids as fathers, it's predictable that the number of custody cases will also rise. But little has changed in terms of gender bias. The mother still typically gets the kids, especially if they are young. After my ex took our daughter out of state when our daughter was two and remarried (her third husband), she thought I should disappear and made visitations increasingly difficult. After five years of this, I went to court thinking I could get better visitations, and, at the least, peace of mind by having he the agreement redone. Although I don't regret going to court because my ex was forced to abide by a clearer agreement, I ended up paying more in child support even though my ex made twice what I did at the time, about 15k to my attorney, and had LESS time with my daughter. (I have a Ph.D., a full time job as a prof, no criminal record, no substance abuse, etc., and I had joint custody when my ex left the state. Even though my ex taught one class a semester as a prof, she had our daughter in full time daycare, and even though she described her new husband as "abusive" both to her and to our daughter, the shrink didn't care.) In my state, the court appoints a "guardian ad litem," a shrink who reports to the court. His or her decision is basically final. You can't take hoim to court and examine him. What happens in cases of conflict, I learned later, is that the shrink always shortens the visitations. So if you are not the custodial parent and a man, the deck is really stacked against you. Thus, I would say that if you can manage to negotiate with your ex out of court, by all means do so. Go to court ONLY AS A LAST RESORT. I had a very good attorney. But there was no way I could win. Moreover, the shrink made a new recommendation each year for the whole coming year, so that cost another 500 each year. The good thing is that it was all worth it in terms of the visitations being made more exact. (In our initial agreement, only th enumber of vistations was agreed to, not their length or their dates.) As my daughter has gotten older, she has begun to see for herself just how how unreasonable my ex is (I decided it was best to let her figure things out for herself rather than comment on them to her). I remarried happily when my daughter was eight, and my wife and I have a two year old son, who my daughter loves. So things have worked out, especially for my daughter and me, but also for her and my new wife, and for my wife and me, because we don't have to communicate with my ex (except about pick ups and drop-offs).

In some ways, the court system is a terrible racket. The courts pass the buck to the shrinks, and the shrinks pass the buck right back to the court. Everyone claims to be acting in the "best interest of the child," but that is just empty rhetoric. So stay out of court, if you can. Present yourself as calm and reasonable if you do go to court, and do not correspond by email with your ex. Also, make sure you research the shrinks. Some of them are very conservative about visitations, others are much more reasonable. And use that "best interest of the child" rhetoric too. Never talk about your own needs. They don't count. Somehow, the idea that a child would benefit from having her father be financially stable and emotionally happy is not an idea that shrinks or the courts care apparently about. Don't talk much about yourself unless asked. Don't talk about your ex, and don't express any anger aout her. Do talk about how much you love your daughter. Cry. Get very emotional about ho wmuch you miss her, how you ar concerned about her. And if you do to court, get an agreement that spells everything out in advance--exact dates, etc, for as long in advance as you can. That cuts down on any need to interact with ex. And of course, never talk to your kids about any conflict over the visitations, even if your ex is, and don't talk to them about your ex either, even if she is the ex from hell. Shield them from the conflict as much as you can.

First let me say that I have read dozens of books on Father's rights. As someone who has been involved in a long-term divorce and custody action, I felt it was imperative to educate myself "outside of the box". What I found was that while many self-help books offer good advice and content, none have done so within the context of the American legal system. No matter what is said about good intentions, it always comes down to legal issues in conjunction with behavioral and mental issues.

This book is worth its weight in gold. Written by an attorney with vast experience in Father's rights cases, it is a no BS manual for determining your situation and finding a roadmap to its conclusion. Excellent informational content, well-written, and methodically walks the reader through the different phases, scenarios, and pitfalls of impending litigation, whether it be a simple way to craft a parenting agreement or all-out war.

I whole-heartedly recommend this book as the single best resource you can find for Father's engaged in divorce and custody issues. Real-world advice that's on target. I have engaged four different attorneys in two states in a three year cross-state litigation case involving UCCJEA, and spent 30k in fees for worthless representation until I found my current attorney. If these professionals had the cumulative experience that was documented in this book, and had they been able to trasfer that information to me in its entirety, I could have saved myself a ton of problems.

Do yourself a favor and buy this book.

The advice this book offers has some points, but a word of caution: Lawyers are in business to MAKE MONEY. I personally find it over-promising, and somewhat confusing, for anyone to call themselves a "father's rights" attorney, (which sounds very wholesome and innocent), when divorce and custody proceedings, and most lawyers in general are NOT. As such, it is difficult to recommend the book or the author in navigating such highly personal and intrusive matters.

As many parents find out after the courts have destroyed their relationships with their children, the right of a parent is fundamental [liberty] interest which should not require a person to go through a lengthy, costly, or intrusive legal battle to protect a God-given right, if there is no finding of 'parental unfitness' on one or both sides, which is irrelevant anyway if a child is NOT in any immediate danger, or if neglect is not real.

The contrast is that many parents end up being hard pressed to find ANY lawyer that would make such arguments, in Leving's jurisdiction or anywhere else. The concept of a "father's rights" attorney to me is what is truly a "suspect classification", just as a "Biker's rights" attorney, or a "Gay Baby Seal's Rights" attorney, etc. Color it anyway you want--at the end of the day they're still Lawyers, most of whom will clean you out without a thought as to the outcome for you, your children, or your case, and do not deserve any special affection or attention beyond that of a used car salesman, or a pan-handler. You have to scrutinize them and show up at EVERY court hearing.

Parents are "lawyer bait" if they do not know the ropes, or how lawyers often separate divorcing parents from their children [and their money] under the guise of "helping" to protect their rights--as if they have the power from God almighty to protect you, [which they do not, regardless of what you see on TV]. Getting this type of advice purely from a lawyer would be like going to a auto mechanic to ask if they should replace your engine. It's not hard to figure out how quickly the fool and his money will be parted.

Do your homework and get solid referrals from multiple sources of people who've worked with lawyers and find someone with a good track record if you absolutely must hire one.

Don't be fooled by Snakeoil Salesmen. Most lawyers do NOT want clients to bring up fundamental rights or use of "strict scrutiny" in unlawful removal of parental rights, which is what typically happens in our trial and appellate courts, because it would in part hurt the divorce industry, regardless of the "best interests of the child" statute. At the same time, if you show-up without a lawyer, you might as well hang a sign on your back that says "kick me". It's a "members' only" club, it's about lawyers helping lawyers, [not children or parents]. Regardless of the outcome, THERE ARE NO WINNERS unless or until you can make peace. If you can't do that--then get connected with your elected officials and national advocacy groups that are working to protect children and parents.