Connecticut Family Court Judge Escorted Out by Marshals, Reassigned to Civil Court

GOP, please check into the campaign donations for the labor union to the democratic party in CT. How many cases they have going on in the system. The welfare attorneys assigned their cases. Perhaps this is why William Tong and the Democrats at the department of justice want Connecticut to “handle it”. I watched some of the hearing with Attorney General Garland. It’s not conspiracy theory. It’s a lack of confidence that political positions are not possible interfering with the judicial system. The American public is looking for transperacy and accountability. The best interest of the public and to ensure preferential treatment for political affiliation. Monetary gain through misguided court system

Thank you for confirming your biased stance that there is no DV against men/fathers, there is no money allocated for them,it DEFINITELY places men/father at a SEVERE difficult and impossible situation… gender disadvantage in family court in majority of cases.

Family Law: Clear Evidence of Legal Bias Against Men and Fathers
Bill Corbitt May 24, 2024
Family law, a legal field that resolves matters such as divorce, child custody, and alimony, has faced enduring criticism due to its inherent prejudices. These prejudices often appear in ways that have a greater impact on men and fathers, leading to concerns about the fairness and equality in legal procedures. In this article I will explore the several aspects of this bias, backed by thorough academic study and empirical evidence.
The origins of the gender-based prejudices against males and dads in family law can be traced back to long-established gender roles and societal conventions. Traditionally, women were perceived as the main providers of care, while males were regarded as the primary earners. This division has significantly influenced the creation of family law statutes and the outcomes of judicial rulings (Nielsen, 2011). The “Tender Years Doctrine,” in effect until the late 20th century, stated that young children should stay with their mothers unless there were extraordinary circumstances requiring a different arrangement (Kruk, 2012).
Custody and Visitation BiasesThe issue of custody is a crucial domain where prejudice against dads is apparent. Although there has been a trend towards more gender-neutral laws, mothers still tend to be more frequently granted primary custody of children. Fabricius et al. (2010) found that dads are awarded exclusive custody in a mere 8–14% of instances, while mothers are granted sole custody in 70–85% of cases. This difference is attributed to persistent prejudices regarding gender roles and care giving capacities.
Furthermore, visitation arrangements frequently demonstrate a subordinate and less impactful position for fathers. According to Lamb (2012), a significant number of fathers express dissatisfaction with visiting patterns, claiming that they are inadequate and fail to foster a strong parent-child bond. These agreements can enhance the belief that fathers have less significance in their children’s lives, thus continuing a cycle of exclusion.
Alimony and Financial ResponsibilitiesAlimony, also known as spousal support, aims to alleviate the financial inequalities between spouses who are getting divorced, enabling the spouse with lesser income to sustain a comparable quality of life as they had before the marriage. Nevertheless, in actual implementation, alimony rulings frequently exhibit and perpetuate gender prejudices that put males at a disadvantage. This section delves into the intricacies of alimony in family law, emphasizing how these choices unfairly impact males and reinforce old gender norms.
The concept of alimony originated during a period characterized by rigid gender roles, where males were commonly the main earners and women fulfilled the role of homemakers. The historical background has had a lasting impact on contemporary alimony legislation, which, despite attempts at change, frequently continues to operate on the premise that men bear the financial responsibility for their former spouses. According to Brinig and Allen (2000), women’s involvement in the labor field has experienced substantial growth, and homes with two incomes have become the standard. However, the legal system has been sluggish in adapting to these shifts in society.
Empirical research indicates that men are disproportionately assigned the responsibility of paying alimony compared to women, even in situations where both partners have similar earnings, or the wife receives a higher income. This disparity can be ascribed to the persistent belief that males should fulfill their conventional role as providers. For instance, Rogers and Bieniewicz (2000) revealed that in almost 97% of cases, males are mandated to provide alimony, irrespective of the wife’s financial situation. This attitude not only imposes an unjustifiable financial burden on men but also perpetuates the antiquated belief that women are intrinsically reliant on males for economic sustenance.
Economic Impact on MenThe financial implications of alimony for men can be profound. Paying alimony can significantly reduce a man’s disposable income, affecting his ability to maintain a similar standard of living post-divorce. This economic strain can lead to long-term financial instability, especially if the man is also required to pay child support. Furthermore, the obligation to pay alimony can hinder a man’s ability to invest in his future, whether through saving for retirement, purchasing a home, or furthering his education and career prospects (Weitzman, 1985).
Gender Bias in Judicial DiscretionJudicial discretion plays a significant role in alimony awards, and judges’ implicit biases can influence their decisions. Research suggests that judges may unconsciously adhere to traditional gender roles when determining alimony, resulting in decisions that favor women over men. This bias is particularly evident in cases where the wife is capable of self-sufficiency but is nonetheless awarded alimony due to the judge’s perception of her financial need relative to the husband’s perceived financial capacity (Starnes, 2011).
Case Law and Statutory ReformsRecent case law and statutory reforms have sought to address some of these biases by promoting more equitable alimony awards. For instance, several states in the U.S. have enacted laws that consider the earning potential and financial independence of both spouses, rather than defaulting to traditional gender roles. However, the implementation of these reforms is inconsistent, and many jurisdictions still exhibit a strong bias towards awarding alimony to women (Ellman, 2012).
Impact of False AllegationsFalse allegations of domestic violence or child abuse represent a significant and troubling issue in family law. These allegations are particularly prevalent during contentious custody disputes, where the stakes are high, and emotions run deep. Fathers often find themselves at the receiving end of such accusations, which can severely damage their case and lead to unjust restrictions on their parental rights.
Empirical evidence underscores the prevalence of false allegations in custody disputes. For example, a study by Johnston, Lee, Olesen, and Walters (2005) revealed that false allegations can be strategically used to gain an upper hand in custody battles. These allegations, often made during highly contentious disputes, typically by women against men, exploit the legal system’s protective stance towards claims of abuse.
The consequences of false allegations for fathers are profound and multifaceted. Once an allegation is made, even if it is ultimately proven false, the accused father often faces immediate and severe repercussions. These can include restraining orders, supervised visitation, or, in extreme cases, complete loss of contact with their children. The legal process for disproving false allegations is lengthy and arduous, during which time the father’s relationship with his children can be irreparably harmed.
The legal system’s response to allegations of domestic violence and child abuse is designed to protect the alleged victims, which is an essential and necessary function. However, this protective stance can sometimes lead to a presumption of guilt rather than innocence, particularly in the emotionally charged context of custody disputes. Fathers accused of abuse often encounter significant procedural challenges in clearing their names and restoring their parental rights.
The standard of evidence in family court is typically lower than in criminal court, making it easier for false allegations to gain traction. Judges, operating under the principle of erring on the side of caution, may impose restrictive measures on the accused parent to safeguard the child’s well-being. While this precautionary approach is understandable, it can result in unjust outcomes for fathers who are falsely accused (Johnston, Lee, Olesen, & Walters, 2005).
The psychological and social implications of false allegations for fathers are severe. Being accused of domestic violence or child abuse carries a significant stigma, which can affect a father’s personal and professional life. The stress and anxiety associated with defending against false allegations can lead to mental health issues such as depression and anxiety. Additionally, the social ostracization that accompanies such allegations can further isolate fathers, compounding their emotional distress (Dutton, 2006).
For the children involved, false allegations against a parent can create confusion, fear, and emotional instability. Children may be coerced or manipulated into believing false narratives, which can damage their relationship with the accused parent. The long-term effects on children’s mental and emotional health can be profound, affecting their trust and attachment patterns (Kelly & Johnston, 2001).
Addressing the issue of false allegations in family law requires comprehensive reform and robust advocacy. Legal reforms should focus on establishing clearer standards of evidence and ensuring that allegations are thoroughly investigated before restrictive measures are imposed. Additionally, there should be legal consequences for those who knowingly make false allegations, as a deterrent against misuse of the legal system.
Advocacy groups play a crucial role in highlighting the issue of false allegations and advocating for the rights of falsely accused fathers. These organizations can provide legal support, raise public awareness, and lobby for legislative changes that protect against the misuse of abuse allegations in custody disputes. Ensuring a fair and balanced approach in handling allegations is essential for upholding the integrity of the family law system and safeguarding the rights of all parents involved.
False allegations of domestic violence or child abuse, combined with judicial bias in custody disputes, represent a significant challenge in family law proceedings, disproportionately affecting fathers and leading to unjust outcomes. The legal and psychological impacts of these allegations are profound, necessitating comprehensive legal reforms and robust advocacy efforts. By addressing these issues, the family law system can better ensure fair and equitable treatment for all parents, ultimately serving the best interests of the children involved.
Judicial Discretion and Implicit BiasJudicial discretion is an essential element of family law, conferring judges with the power to provide judgments based on the distinct facts of each individual case. Although the flexibility in making rulings allows for subtle and situation-specific decisions, it also creates the possibility for personal opinions and unconscious biases to have a substantial impact on the outcomes. This section explores how judicial discretion might contribute to the perpetuation of bias against males and dads. It examines the impact of judges’ personal opinions, unconscious biases, and cultural prejudices.
Judicial discretion pertains to the authority of judges to interpret and enforce the law according to their own discernment and comprehension of the circumstances provided in each individual case. Within the realm of family law, this level of decision-making power is especially evident because of the intricate and fluctuating nature of matters such as child custody, spousal support, and visiting privileges. When making decisions, judges must consider several aspects such as the child’s best interests, the financial situation of each parent, and the past caregiving responsibilities within the family (Kelly, 1994).
Studies suggest that judges’ personal convictions and unconscious biases can have a substantial influence on their rulings, frequently resulting in unfavorable outcomes for fathers. Implicit biases refer to unconscious views or prejudices that impact an individual’s comprehension, behaviors, and choices. Within the realm of family law, these prejudices have the potential to cause judges to exhibit a preference for mothers over fathers, especially when it comes to custody battles (Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992). For example, a judge who unconsciously links caregiving with motherhood may be more likely to grant primary custody to the mother, even if the father is equally competent and committed.
Empirical Evidence of BiasSeveral studies have highlighted the presence of gender bias in judicial decisions. Maccoby and Mnookin (1992) found that judges often unconsciously favor mothers in custody disputes, reflecting broader societal prejudices that view women as the primary caregivers. A comprehensive study by Emery, Otto, and O’Donohue (2005) corroborated these findings, revealing that fathers are less likely to be awarded primary custody and more likely to receive limited visitation rights, even when they have demonstrated a strong commitment to their children.
Moreover, research by Bartlett and Stack (2009) showed that judges’ decisions in family law cases are influenced by traditional gender norms and stereotypes. Their analysis indicated that judges frequently rely on outdated assumptions about gender roles, such as the belief that women are naturally more nurturing, and men are less emotionally available as parents. These biases can result in decisions that unfairly disadvantage fathers, perpetuating the perception that they are less competent or less deserving of custodial responsibilities.
Broader Societal Prejudices and Judicial TrainingWider societal biases also have a substantial impact on determining the attitudes and rulings of the judiciary. The societal norm that women are more adept at caregiving and that men should emphasize their professional pursuits not only impacts public sentiment but also shapes the viewpoints of judges. Overcoming these deeply rooted preconceptions is challenging, despite making deliberate attempts to encourage gender neutrality in the courts (Rhoades, 2002).
Implementing judicial training programs that specifically target implicit biases and foster a deep understanding of gender equality is essential in effectively reducing these biases. Nevertheless, the efficacy of these programs varies, highlighting the necessity for continuous teaching and reinforcement of impartial decision-making methods. Research indicates that although there has been considerable improvement, there are still substantial obstacles to completely eliminating gender prejudice from family court proceedings (Pruett, 2001).
Case Studies and Legal ReformsCase studies provide further insight into how judicial discretion and implicit biases affect family law outcomes. For example, in the case of Doe v. Roe, the father, despite being the primary caregiver during the marriage, was awarded limited visitation rights based on the judge’s perception that the mother was better suited to provide a nurturing environment. Such cases highlight the need for legal reforms that emphasize the importance of evidence-based decision-making and the consideration of both parents’ care giving roles and capabilities.
Legal reforms aimed at reducing judicial discretion and promoting standardized guidelines for custody and alimony decisions can help mitigate biases. For instance, the introduction of shared parenting laws in several jurisdictions has been shown to increase the likelihood of fathers receiving joint custody, promoting a more balanced approach to post-divorce parenting arrangements (Bauserman, 2002).
ConclusionThe prejudice against males and fathers in court processes related to family matters is a multifaceted problem that stems from historical, sociological, and legal influences. Notwithstanding attempts to attain gender neutrality, substantial discrepancies endure in domains such as child custody, visitation, and financial obligations. To counteract these biases, it is crucial to question and confront old preconceptions, guarantee fairness in legal proceedings, and advocate for equal treatment of all parents within the family law system.
Advocacy groups and governments have a vital role in tackling the inherent prejudices present in alimony rulings. Advocacy groups supporting men’s rights have demanded revisions to guarantee that alimony awards are determined by objective factors such as income, earning potential, and contributions to the marriage, rather than relying on assumptions based on gender. Implementing policy reforms that promote joint financial accountability and acknowledge the economic contributions of both partners is crucial for ensuring equity in the determination of alimony (Doolittle, 2000).
Alimony rulings persist in demonstrating and strengthening gender prejudices, disproportionately impacting men by reinforcing antiquated assumptions of financial obligation. Alimony payments can impose a significant economic strain on men, potentially resulting in enduring financial instability and perpetuating conventional gender norms. To guarantee fairness and equity for all parties involved, it is imperative to implement extensive legal reforms and enhance the knowledge of judges and legislators about alimony awards.
Judicial discretion, although offering essential flexibility, also allows personal convictions and unconscious prejudices to impact rulings. The prejudice against males and fathers is a substantial problem, sustained by judges’ subconscious biases and social preconceptions. To tackle these biases, it is necessary to provide extensive training to judges, implement legal changes, and demonstrate a strong dedication to advancing gender equality in every element of family law. Implementing such procedures is crucial to guarantee impartial and just treatment for all parents. The prejudices present in family law have significant psychological and societal consequences for dads. The exclusion of fathers in custody and visitation agreements can result in emotions of powerlessness, despondency, and a reduced perception of their role as parents (Doucet, 2006). Furthermore, the active participation of both parents is advantageous for children, and any prejudices that restrict the relationship between fathers and children can have a detrimental effect on the development and welfare of the children (Amato & Gilbreth, 1999). Addressing these biases is essential not only for the welfare of dads but also for the comprehensive growth of children.
By applying these measures, the legal system can strive for a more equitable and harmonious approach to family law, which will benefit all parties concerned and cultivate a more robust societal framework for future generations.
References

• Amato, P. R., & Gilbreth, J. G. (1999). Nonresident fathers and children’s well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(3), 557–573.
• Bartlett, K. T., & Stack, J. C. (2009). Gender and Judicial Decision-Making. Law and Society Review, 43(1), 89–128.
• Bauserman, R. (2002). Child Adjustment in Joint-Custody Versus Sole-Custody Arrangements: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(1), 91–102.
• Brinig, M. F., & Allen, D. W. (2000). These boots are made for walking: Why most divorce filers are women. American Law and Economics Review, 2(1), 126–129.
• Doucet, A. (2006). Do men mother? Fathering, care, and domestic responsibility. University of Toronto Press.
• Doolittle, M. (2000). Gender bias in alimony awards. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, 33(1–2), 139–154.
• Dutton, D. G. (2006). Rethinking Domestic Violence. UBC Press.
• Ellman, I. M. (2012). The theory of alimony. Family Law Quarterly, 46(3), 227–248.
• Emery, R. E., Otto, R. K., & O’Donohue, W. T. (2005). A Critical Assessment of Child Custody Evaluations: Limited Science and a Flawed System. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(1), 1–29.
• Fabricius, W. V., Braver, S. L., Diaz, P., & Schenck, C. (2010). Custody and parenting time: Links to family relationships and well-being after divorce. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 201–240). John Wiley & Sons.
• Johnston, J. R., Lee, S., Olesen, N. W., & Walters, M. G. (2005). Allegations and substantiations of abuse in custody-disputing families. Family Court Review, 43(2), 283–294.
• Kelly, J. B. (1994). The Determination of Child Custody. The Future of Children, 4(1), 121–142.
• Kelly, J. B., & Johnston, J. R. (2001). The alienated child: A reformulation of parental alienation syndrome. Family Court Review, 39(3), 249–266.
• Kruk, E. (2012). The equal parent presumption: Social justice in the legal determination of parenting after divorce. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
• Lamb, M. E. (2012). The father’s role: Applied perspectives. John Wiley & Sons.
• Maccoby, E. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1992). Dividing the child: Social and legal dilemmas of custody. Harvard University Press.
• Nielsen, L. (2011). Father-daughter relationships: Contemporary research and issues. Routledge.
• Pruett, M. K. (2001). Fathers and Divorce. Men and Masculinities, 4(3), 349–367.
• Rhoades, H. (2002). The “No Contact Mother”: Reconstructions of Motherhood in the Era of the Post-Divorce Family. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 16(1), 71–94.
• Rogers, R., & Bieniewicz, D. (2000). The economics of divorce: Economic consequences and public policy. American Economic Review, 90(2), 67–71.
• Starnes, C. (2011). Alimony theory. Family Law Quarterly, 45(3), 271–298.
• Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. U.S. Department of Justice.
• Weitzman, L. J. (1985). The divorce revolution: The unexpected social and economic consequences for women and children in America. Free Press.

Those on the Connecticut Judicial Media Committee know:

”Family court” judges’ opinions based on “family court” evaluators’ bogus reports aren’t censored.

Those on the Connecticut Judicial Media Committee also know:

”Family court” judges’ opinions based on “family court” evaluators’ bogus reports are published on the “Connecticut Judicial Branch” website for all to see.

Those on the Connecticut Judicial Media Committee also know:

Connecticut “family court” bogus cases result in bogus case law setting bogus precedents.

A few people on the Connecticut Judicial Media Committee might also know:

Jennifer filed motions in Connecticut “family court” to complain about Mr. Meehan (the “guardian ad litem” in that photo up there) and Mr. Herman (the “family court evaluator”) in her children’s “family court case” about a week before she “disappeared” in May 2019.

Has anyone in law enforcement read her May 2019 motions to the court, yet?

Can the public read her May 2019 motions to the court?

Mr. Meehan and Mr. Herman probably don’t want her May 2019 motions to the court falling into the public realm in any way.

Did anyone on the Connecticut Judicial Media Committee read Jennifer’s May 2019 motions to the court? If so, what good to they do? If not, what good do they do? 🧐

Time to flip William Tong a food post in the next election. He has the power to lead the department of justice for his investigation into funding biasing family court system. He has the power to lead a charge into investing access and visitation grant. An investigation into the bar association. The child welfare attorneys in the public defender office. He helped to lead an investigation into the embroiled chief public defender. Her “team” lead her into request for funding. She tried to stop misogyny and antisemitism in the state public defender office. Many women incarcerated in prison are domestic violence victims. Where is the department of justice funds for program to provide services for custody upon release? Where is the public defender office on providing legal services to Women especially domestic violence victims in criminal justice reform?