How Women’s ‘Abuse Excuse’ Violates Constitutional Protections and Tyrannizes Men and Fathers
© Shane Flait (2011)

Today, criminal behavior is not required in most domestic abuse cases. Here’s how the feminist-instigated ‘greater good’ ‘abuse excuse’ allows a woman to get a restraining order against a father and much more – all without constitutional protection of his rights.

A woman often files an abuse complaint against the father of her children as a prelude to filing a divorce or paternity suit. Doing so gives her immediate and exclusive control over the children and family assets. It easily and undeservedly imposes a badge of infamy upon the father.

The Restraining Order for Abuse Process

First, the woman requests a restraining order against the father in an ‘ex parte’ court hearing. ‘Ex parte’ means without the father’s presence.

Under present law, a restraining order can be issued against a father if a woman is ‘in fear of imminent physical harm’. So the judge asks her if she’s ‘in fear’ of him. She’s been prompted by women’s assistance organizations to state this.

The perversion of this law is the use of ‘fear’ since it’s subjective. The judge is supposed to seek ‘objective’ evidence of ‘imminent physical harm’ for the ‘fear’ it presumably induces. That means that a reasonable person would clearly feel that physical harm was indeed imminent. But you can see that even as the law is written, it is wholly prejudiced against objective ‘wrong doing’.  ‘In fear’ has become the essential element of accusation – so the judge acts on that alone.

Previously, restraining orders required witnesses or some objective proof to prevent unwarranted denial of a person’s rights at only the word of the accuser.  Indeed, there should be a trial with the accused able to call witnesses and cross-examine the accuser before any fundamental rights are curtailed.  But that’s all past history under present feminist jurisprudence and its ‘greater good’ excuses.

With ‘in fear’ so stated, the court puts a restraining order (RO) against the father, which immediately orders him out of his home, away from his children for 10 days - often relegated to living in his car. Therefore, he has no claim to his own house, his assets held there, and his children when he has done nothing wrong. U.S. Supreme Court case law says that denial of fundamental rights for any length of time without a full evidentiary hearing is unconstitutional.

This civil RO with no proof of criminal wrong doing is less than a ‘misdemeanor’. With so many supposedly ‘battered women’ shelters (none for men) paid for by your taxes, shouldn’t the court tell women to go there ‘for free’ rather than denying all fundamental rights of a man with no proof?

The judge then schedules another hearing in about 10 days. This 10-day hearing should be a trial requiring clear and convincing evidence that the father has threatened imminent harm to the mother. Cross examinations and witnesses should be allowed for fathers who have been denied virtually all constitutional rights for 10 days and now with a possible continuation of up to 1 year or more.

But it’s a joke. The judge often won’t allow the father to speak. In fact feminist-instigated rules suggest that a father’s cross examination of the mother can be viewed as abusive. No real trial takes place with evidential standards. This flies in the face of constitutional due process. And defining the very act of defending yourself in court as abusive is against the maxims of law! The result of this 10-day hearing is often the continuation of the RO for a year at least. 

Civil restraining order magically morphs into criminal violations

Any harmless violation of the restraining order will produce serious criminal consequences. If a father sends a birthday card to his child – or flowers to the mother – he’s immediately in criminal violation of the civil restraining order. That means jail!

A father is often held in jail on a harmless violation for a month or two. Only then, is he asked if he would like to plea bargain to be let out for simply saying he is guilty rather than having a trial where he may face jail for up to 2 ½  years for being convicted of, perhaps, simply calling his children.

This threat is real, since his jury will not be ‘informed’ by the court that they can find him innocent of those trivial violations if they think the law is bad or the penalty too severe. Our founding fathers required ‘informed juries’ (i.e. judges to inform juries that they can rule on both the evidence and the law) to protect defendants against bad laws. Judges no longer inform jurors – but juries still, unknowingly, have that right

It’s important to realize a real crime (i.e. assault or battery) never need be committed here -and usually isn't. But jailing men for trivial violations is a good way to extort untrue 'abuse confessions' from them so they can preserve their jobs, and VAWA groups can justify their phony abuse statistics. Today’s restraining order process operationally works like Massachusetts’ infamous Salem Witch Trials three centuries ago, where admitting to being a witch saved you from death.

With such a ‘weak’ requirement to procure a RO against a father and virtually no chance of being punished for perjury while setting up to reap financial gains from the state and from fathers, you can be assured that women make many false claims of abuse –as most of them are.

A divorce and domestic violence cadre of legal elites and benefactors has exploded to feed off the court-ordered injustice that fathers suffer. Of course, it propagandizes ‘safety of women’ and an epidemic of abusive men. This industry’s power, money and agenda keep this injustice going.      

It’s clear that this feminist-instigated state-imposed ‘abuse excuse’ is yet another ‘greater good’ – i.e. greater than constitutional rights and protections of men – that’s destroying fathers, families and freedom.  

 

 

 

 

END