|
Nearly
ninety years ago, when divorce liberalization was being
advocated by feminists, G.K. Chesterton warned in
The Superstition of Divorce that undermining
the family would imperil civic freedom.
His
warning was vindicated recently when
Massachusetts
family court judge Mary Manzi outlawed a book that criticizes
government officials. Manzi herself is sharply criticized in
the book but obviously did not recuse herself from the
proceeding.
On
March 24, Kevin Thompson received an order prohibiting
distribution of his book,
Exposing the Corruption in the Massachusetts Family Courts.
The court also impounded the records of Thompson’s custody
case, reinforcing the secrecy in which family courts like to
operate.
The
standard justification for secret courts is the one Judge
Manzi now extends to censorship: "privacy interests of the
parties' minor child." Thompson’s son has already been
forcibly separated from his father, and his life is now under
the total control of state officials. What "privacy" does this
child have left? Thompson understands that the true reason for
the secrecy and censorship is not to protect privacy but to
invade it with impunity: "The only interests that are
protected are the interests of the racketeers and hypocrites
who invade ‘family privacy’ by removing loving fathers from
the lives of their children against their will and without
just cause to fill their pockets."
Many
people have trouble believing the harrowing tales of human
rights abuses now taking place in American family courts and
wonder why, if they are true, we do not hear more about it.
Perhaps because in many jurisdictions it is a crime to
criticize family court judges or otherwise discuss family law
cases publicly. In other words, censorship works.
Thompson’s case is not isolated. Under the pretext of "family
privacy," parents are gagged and arrested for criticizing the
courts:
-
Alice Tulanowksi of New Brunswick, New Jersey, was
placed under a gag rule in 2000, though judges and the
New Jersey Chapter of the Association of Family and
Conciliation Courts were left "free to discuss the
intimate details of Alice’s case" in public.
-
Stanley Rains of Victoria, Texas, in 2001 was gagged
"from speaking, writing, or publishing his opinions"
about why he was cut off from his daughter for more than
two years, according to court documents. The order
covers private conversations and discussions with mental
health professionals and his minister. Issued with no
evidentiary hearing, the order followed an article Rains
published in Fathering Magazine. He was also
prohibited from criticizing a city council candidate who
was a divorce lawyer. The order precluded Rains from
photographing death threats written on his mother’s car.
-
The former husband of singer Wynonna Judd was arrested
and jailed for talking to reporters about his divorce.
-
A
California judge shut down the web site of the Committee
to Expose Dishonest and Incompetent Attorneys and Judges
in 2001.
-
In 2005, Texas Attorney
General Greg Abbott formally asked a federal court to
punish Charles Edward Lincoln, for criticizing the
state’s family courts. Abbott termed the criticism,
which consisted in filing some court papers, "bloodless
terrorism."
|
Outright censorship is only the start, since judges usually
prefer more subtle methods for stopping the mouths of their
critics. Thompson is also being forced to pay the attorneys
who advocated the book ban. This practice has the marvelous
double effect of providing booty for the judge’s cronies and
justifying incarceration of critics who cannot pay the instant
"debt." Following his criticism of the family courts in
testimony to Congress, Jim Wagner of the Georgia Council for
Children’s Rights was stripped of custody of his two children
and ordered to pay $6,000 in fees of attorneys he had not
hired. He was soon after arrested for nonpayment.
Censorship of speech and press is only the tip of the iceberg
and serves to cloak even more serious constitutional and human
rights violations. Writing in the Rutgers Law Review,
David Heleniak recently revealed the "due process fiasco" of
family law. Calling family courts "an area of law mired in
intellectual dishonesty and injustice," Heleniak identifies
six major denials of due process by which courts seize
children and railroad innocent parents into jail: denial of
trial by jury, denial of poor defendants to free counsel,
denial of right to take depositions, lack of evidentiary
hearings, lack of notice, and improper standard of proof. In
family law, "the burden of proof may be shifted to the
defendant," according to a handbook for local officials
published by the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Dean Roscoe Pound writes that "the powers of the Star Chamber
were a trifle in comparison with those of our juvenile court
and courts of domestic relations."
In
fact, even this only scratches the surface. One can run
point-by-point down the Bill of Rights and other
constitutional protections, and there is hardly a clause that
is not routinely ignored or violated in family law, where
practices include mass incarcerations without trial, summary
expropriations, presumption of guilt, coerced confessions,
ex post facto provisions, bills of attainder, and more.
Family courts and their hangers-on are by far the greatest
violators of constitutional rights in America today.
Journalists of both the left and right studiously ignore these
violations, as do "human rights" groups, even when shown
undeniable evidence. It will be interesting to see if they can
ignore censorship that touches their own profession.
For his
part, Thompson says he intends to ignore the censorship.
"Everything that I am doing right now is for my son," he
declares. "I will not be shut up."
April 4, 2006
Stephen
Baskerville [send
him mail]
is a political scientist and president of the
American
Coalition for Fathers and Children. The views
expressed are his own.
|
