by Paul Elam

Created on: January 26, 2009   Last Updated: April 19, 2009

It is in one way ironic that we put troubled families into the hands of lawyers; the one profession certain to turn any manageable conflict into a war zone. One the other hand, a wise man once said if you want something destroyed.

Courtrooms, the one place on the planet other than congress where cockroaches aren't afraid of the light, have become the demolition derby for families in trouble. They are shooting galleries, where children and fathers are driven past women and lawyers like pop-up targets. The fathers have lawyers, too. They are the ones standing out of the line of fire urging their clients to fight till the legal bills are maxed out.

This is not just a scenario endemic to divorce. It is not just the best we can do with a system that means well. It is a bad system that does bad things for all the wrong reasons. The most common of reasons being money.

There is no profit for lawyers in amicable divorces. They don't generate much more than filing fees and court costs. And parents that share parenting and expenses after the divorce are pretty useless as well. They keep their kids intact, but the lawyers get zilch.

So the family law system, owned and operated by attorneys, has evolved into an adversarial theater of the damned, where turpitude and mendaciousness are considered good breeding; where children and fathers are sold out as a matter of routine.

Court officials are quick to tell anyone interested that they act in "the best interest of the children." They even practice saying it with lofty idealism.

Don't buy it. The courts are about two things. Money and winning, in that order. They even have it rigged so that we usually know the winner before the gavel ever hits the wood. The only real mystery is the length of the fight and the final bill.

Children? Their best interest is the first thing to go. That is what happens when you turn them into property and use them as bargaining chips along with houses, cars and bank accounts.

It is clear that it would be in the best interest of the child to maintain close, loving contact with both parents regardless of the marriages collapse; to let the parenting continue even as the marriage ends. Courts could make that the default objective if they were interested. Instead what usually happens is a restraining order, almost always on Daddy. The courts rubber stamp them without proof or corroboration.

In one legal maneuver, the court, supposedly acting in the best interest of the child, suddenly and completely severs that

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>