In 2011, Judge David L. Knutson ordered the five Rucki children into reunification therapy and supervised visits with father, David Rucki, while two separate harassment orders were in place against him (one harassment order filed by Sandra, the other filed by a neighbor).
The danger Rucki poses to children is noted in a police report filed against Rucki prior to obtaining the HRO which states,”he and his wife run a daycare at their home and are very concerned for the children they care for (due to Rucki’s threats and aggressive behavior).“
Along with the HRO, Rucki has a long history of violent behavior that manifests in both his criminal record, and in the abuse allegations raised by ex-wife Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and children. druckipolicereports (See page 11-21 for information related to this article) Court documents also indicate that Rucki was ordered in anger management classes on 3 separate occasions, and during the divorce was ordered into domestic abuse counseling.
Despite overwhelming evidence, Judge David L. Knutson refused to acknowledge the abuse, and has put the lives of the Rucki children at risk by first by court-ordering the “de-programming” the children to recant abuse allegations and then by giving sole custody to Rucki – after proven to be dangerous, emotionally unstable, and not safe around children.
NOTE: This article contains some of the defense evidence suppressed by Judge Karen Asphaug during the rigged trial of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki.
The harassment order was filed by a neighbor R.M. (issued on September 15, 2009) and barred Rucki from having any contact with his wife R.R.M., their two children and even the children enrolled in the daycare they operated. HRO Filed Against Rucki 2009
According to the HRO David Rucki terrorized the family in the following ways:
Made Threats: “He said he would unleash holy hell if we ever turned him in again”. “He also did a threat later in the street. He’s mad we called animal control over his dogs.”
Exhibited Frightening Behavior: Loud, Cursing, Coming in Close proximity to their house and mailbox.
Called the Victim(s) Abusive Names: Called my wife a “bitch” and my son a “son of a bitch” and called us “assholes”. Cursing at us while daycare kids present.
While the HRO was in place, Rucki violated the order numerous times. The neighbors were so frightened that they placed security cameras around their home.
The HRO remained in place for 2 years – the reason the neighbors did not renew the HRO was because Sandra had a protective order in place that prohibited David from coming near the cul-de-sac, where the neighbors also lived, so they felt that restraining order would also protect their family. This proved to be false – Rucki has stalked Sandra, and violated protective orders she filed against him. Sandra’s protective order was later dismissed by Judge David L. Knutson.
*** IMPORTANT UPDATE ***
Journalist Michael Volpe, covering the Grazzini-Rucki case, just released a police report filed by R.M on September 8, 2009 . The police report documents the terrifying incident that led up to the HRO: David Rucki thinks “asshole” is an appropriate term for a three year old.
The police report demonstrates abusive behavior, and an abusive mentality through Rucki’s own words and actions. A pattern also emerges from the police report that corroborates abuse allegations raised by Sandra.
Domestic violence is defined by a pattern of abusive behavior that is used to gain power and control over another person through threat, force, violence or intimidation. Domestic Violence – US DOJ
What is particularly dangerous about Rucki is that he attempts to exert power and control over anyone close to him -beyond his family. Rucki literally prowls the neighborhood, and by extension Lakeville, as his own territory much like an alpha wolf.
A Few Examples of David Rucki’s Pattern of Abuse:
The police report describes Rucki threatening and swearing at the neighbor’s children and also swearing at the children in the daycare.
Rucki threatened and swore at the neighbor’s wife, R.R.M.; including incidents where children were present. Rucki is so brazen that he referred to R.R.M. as a “bitch” while police were present!
The threats and profanity are the same as what Rucki has said to Sandra, and his own children. The viciousness of Rucki’s words were captured in a series of voice mail messages left for his teenage son (Comments taken from picture above. Also read transcripts recorded voice mail messages)
Rucki refers to R.R.M. as a “crazy lady“. Rucki also accuses ex-wife Sandra as “crazy”. Sandra has never been diagnosed with mental illness. Rucki continues to avoid questions about his own mental health, and the results of his psych evals.
Rucki admits in the police report that he called Child Protective Services on the neighbors “due to safety concerns for the children“. Reading the police report it is obvious the only safety concern that exists is David Rucki. It is clear Rucki made a false report to CPS because he was angry at the neighbors, and was carrying out on threats he made against them.
Rucki made false reports against Sandra to the family court professionals and during the criminal trial, claiming she is a danger to the children. There have never been any findings of abuse against Sandra. Just the opposite – when court proceedings began, the Rucki children expressed they shared a loving relationship with their mother and wanted to live with her. It is only through forcible separation, and under the threat of de-programming that has Sandra become estranged from her children.The allegations Rucki raised against Sandra are not motivated by genuine concern but rather, are a form of abuse.
Another example – while the police officer was interviewing R.M. (quote),”he informed me that suspect (Rucki) drove by as we were speaking and put up the middle finger of his left hand at him…” Rucki later admits to police that he did make a gesture but says, “I only waved at them, they can see it however they want.”
A similar gesture made by Rucki with his middle finger was captured in a still photo taken on July 27, 2013, in a stalking incident: What’s Fair is Fair
Finally, when the police interview Rucki he is angry and refusing to cooperate. The officer informs Rucki that they will have to charge him with disorderly conduct, Rucki replies, “Go ahead it’s their word against mine and you can’t prove anything.” Rucki approached police two additional times stating “that we couldn’t take their word over his“. Rucki attempts to intimidate police to get them to drop charges against him.
In another section, Rucki basically says the laws do not apply to him. He attempts to intimidate another police officer into dropping a complaint against him.
This is similar behavior as what was reported by S.R. (one of the teens who ran away due to Rucki’s abuse) – that she was pressured and guilted into recanting abuse allegations by Rucki: Pressured, Threatened S. Rucki Bravely Speaks Out Against “Horrendous” Family Court
“You can’t prove anything” could also explain what has happened to Sandra throughout all of the legal proceedings from 2011 to the present – Dakota County, has taken the word of David Rucki as fact and completely violated the law, and dismissed significant evidence and documentation in doing so.
Why does Dakota County protect David Rucki?
Originally Posted: Rucki Police Report, HRO
For More Information:
Michael Volpe’s articles on the #grazzinirucki case can be found Communities Digital News: Grazzini-Rucki Articles on CDN
The author of this diary is the grandmother of children who were placed into the full custody and control of their identified and confirmed rapist. Helen and her husband spent one and a half million dollars fighting for their grandchildren’s safety in a corrupt family court system. The mother was unable to write her story because she is still suffering from PTSD from being imprisoned for having challenged the authority of the wealthy father. She was tormented in prison for an entire year before she was released, thanks to a 20/20 investigation. Warning: graphic content.
My story is part of an attempt by Safe Kids International to raise awareness regarding divorce court judges covering up abuse and awarding custody to abusive fathers.
The DOJ Investigative Report explains-the nation’s divorce courts award custody to abusive fathers-while “good fit” mothers are court ordered supervised visits – or no contact.
The U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s-comments to the National Summit on Domestic Violence: Why are mothers who are victims of domestic violence losing custody of their children to the courts-even when their fathers have been abusive to them and their mothers?
I was driven mad by the horrific injustice. I was compelled to save [not only] my grandchildren-but other abused children in the nation’s divorce courts. To no avail. Every night I pray [Lord give us the strength for this journey]. We are still on that journey.
During an intact marriage, physicians diagnosed child sexual abuse-based on five-year-old son’s torn bloody rectum. Father’s reaction to the diagnosis was to go into divorce court with a criminal attorney.
Child Protective Services/CPS opened our case on March 4th, closed March 5th due to custody issues. Because when father was contacted by CPS, he stated the magic words [“There are custody issues”] which shuts down CPS investigations of child abuse.
The custody decision states: father is awarded sole custody based on parental alienation. Parental alienation is used in the nation’s courts to cover up abuse – it has nothing to do with alienating behavior. Minor’s attorney, Kevin Busch and custody evaluator Robert Shapiro recommended custody to father-based on parental alienation.
The physicians who diagnosed child sexual abuse-refused to testify. Illinois law book POF 6 2D 353 explains: physicians fail to report child abuse for a myriad of reasons -from a fear of harming their practice to a fear of entanglement as a result of reporting. Legislation has not achieved the desired goal-only a small percentage of cases are ever reported.]
At age 7 daughter drew and labeled a picture [Lynn Dad] of dad’s penis in Lynn’s mouth. Lynn had blood in her panties-when mom picked her up for visits. CPS and police investigated. The allegations were found credible and father was placed on no contact.
The court found: father sexually abused son and daughter-including, but not limited to, repeatedly sodomizing and forcing oral copulation. The judge’s court transcript states: In the case at bar, the danger is extraordinarily disturbing sexual assaults perpetrated many times-skillfully concealed. CPS explained to mother that father is on “no contact” and has no legal standing, recommending mother go home to California.
However, despite CPS giving mother permission – mother was criminally charged with leaving the jurisdiction by Kane County Illinois Assistant State’s Attorney, Clint Hull. The jurisdiction law is based on the parent-child relationship – the only inquiry is the status of the parent left behind.
Despite a court appointed psychologist concluding it was emotionally destructive for Mac and Lynn to have contact with their father, the children were ordered back to father. At which time, Mac + Lynn ran away. Mac [age 14] found a way to enroll in college-where he was a straight A student, studying law and psychology.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited children does not discern missing children running away from abusive fathers…from children being missing or exploited.
Mac and Lynn were hunted down. Twenty U.S. Marshall’s broke down the front door…pointed semi-automatic rifles at skinny Mac and Lynn-pinned them on the floor-and handcuffed them. Mac and Lynn were brought into court where U.S. Marshals championed father and championed parental alienation.
20/20 actually did their job of investigative reporting and helped bring justice to this Illinois family.
I wish we could say the same about their coverage of our cases. As most of you are aware, 20/20 did a hit piece on the Grazzini-Rucki case entitled Footprints in the Snow in April of 2016. They actually aided and abetted in the cover up of abuse in this case and have refused to make any corrections in their portrayal of this ongoing story. In fact, 20/20 actually asked an investigative reporter that has covered this case extensively, to refrain from sending any more documents that show the truth in this case.
Elizabeth Vargas was extremely biased and hostile when interviewing Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and very sympatheric toward the father in this case. The People Magazine article below shows the false secret network narrative that 20/20 had planned from the beginning. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest a “secret network” was involved in the Grazzini-Rucki case or involved in the disappearance of the eldest two daughters. In fact, both S.R. and G.R. openly admit they ran away due to safety concerns, and raised numerous abuse allegations prior to running away and after being found 2 years later. During all this time, their story is consistent, and does not change.
Recently, 20/20’s Elizabeth Vargas announced her resignation from the show “to pursue new ventures”.
To my 20/20 family,
I want you to hear some news about me, from me. I will be leaving ABC News, and 20/20 at the end of this historic 40th season. It has been a profound privilege to be the anchor of 20/20 for 14 years, and a true honor to work with each and every one of you. I am incredibly lucky to work alongside the very best in the business: the producers, editors, writers on this show, and the enormous team working every week to get our show on the air. I am so very proud of the stories we have told together.
I am sorry only to have to share this news with you as we celebrate the holidays. I had hoped to make this announcement after the first of the year.
This is not goodbye – I will be here through May, and cannot wait to do more work with all you in the months ahead.
Have a happy holiday with your families, and I will see you next year.
Stay tuned for more information on Elizabeth Vargas and 20/20.
David Rucki is so violent, and so abusive that he beat ex-wife Sandra Grazzini-Rucki while pregnant, and assaulted his unborn before the child even took his first breath. As a result of the beating, the child was born prematurely (and suffers with permanent health problems).
This, according to, statements Sandra Grazzini-Rucki made during a heart-wrenching episode of Fighting B.A.C.K. (Aired: 6/19/2017) During the episode, Sandra also reveals that Rucki threatened to harm her children as a way to gain control over her through fear and intimidation.
The shocking revelation came when Sandra responded to a guest who was describing her own situation with domestic violence, and how her child was affected. The guest says her abusive ex used her child as a weapon, and would even retaliate by hurting the child, as a way to intimidate and control her. Sandra said that hearing the guest’s story reminded her of the violent marriage she escaped from.
The National Institutes of Health reports that over 300,000 pregnant women in the U.S. are victims to domestic violence, with domestic violence being the leading cause of death among U.S. women of childbearing age.
(Note: This article contains additional information on these incidents, as provided by a confidential source – which are told in the first person voice to illustrate Sandra’s horrifying experience, and told in this way raise awareness of the impact of domestic violence experienced during pregnancy)
Rucki’s Assault on an Unborn Baby: “I was kicked repeatedly in the stomach (because) he was ‘not a perfect child’…”
Imagine the horror Sandra surely experienced and felt:
Lying on a gurney, hands desperately clutch swollen belly, trying to hold back contractions… as she fades in and out of consciousness, she pleads,”No, no, it’s too soon…”
How would she explain the bruises this time? The violent assault against her unborn left her belly black and blue, bleeding on the inside… she realized too late that she married a demon in the flesh. Raging he stood over her kicking again and again… spit flying from his mouth as he screamed and swore..
Loud voice, someone shouting her name… she screamed and threw her arms out… The beep-beep of a fetal monitor going wild… She struggled to open her eyes, not comprehending, plastic IV tubing twisting as she fought… frightened by the sound of her name being called. Was she safe?
Signs of life.. a faint and erratic heart beat … tiny, seashell shaped knees raised to chest then violently kick out… Even the hospital could not protect her once he realized the baby he tried to kill was now fighting back.
(28:21) Sandra says: “When my youngest child was born, he (David Rucki) was under the belief that this was not going to be a ‘perfect child’ when I was kicked repeatedly into the stomach and went into pre-term labor, and gave birth, and he (Rucki) said, I want him gone rather than have a kid that’s not perfect because it’s more about me than it is about him…”
The child has been permanently affected by the assault inflicted on him while in the womb, and will suffer with lifelong health issues.
Rucki Threatens to Chop Baby Up in a Ceiling Fan
All she wanted was to be a wife and mother, to have a home filled with laughter and children. Instead the children tip-toed through the rooms like ghosts – vainly trying to remain silent and unseen, as if they could avoid their father’s rage.
The children… where were the children? So much they should not see… the violence, the tears… the fake apologies… Hiding somewhere in the house. Hands slammed over their small ears. Tears filling their eyes. They feared not the mythical monster in the closet that most children imagine but the very real monster in the house, their father.
(28:06) Sandra says: “When my oldest child was 3 months old, my ex-husband David Rucki grabbed him from the bassinet, held him up to a ceiling fan and said, ‘You will do as I say or he is going into the fan…’”
(29:03) Sandra says: “Sometimes when you talk about things it reminds me of things that David Rucki did and yet these are the men that have our children… You talk about this and I know, I will never forget when David held the baby up to the ceiling fan and said ‘You do what I say or he’s (chokes on words) .. they have no concern for the child, it’s more of a control issue…”
Rucki Promised to Change But Then Threatened to Kill Sandra, and the Children
Runaway Rucki Teen, G.R. also stated,”…He showed anger like, ‘I’m going to kill you…’ “ (Social Service Report, November 2015: Social Worker Recommended – Protective Care for Rucki Girls, Supervised Visits With Father Due to Safety Concerns)
Sandra says during the marriage, Rucki repeatedly promised to change but always resorted back to his abusive behavior. Sandra says Rucki even threatened to kill “your children” if she did not comply with his demands.
Sandra says physical, mental and sexual abuse existed in the generations of the Rucki family and influenced David Rucki’s abusive behavior and attitude towards his own children. David Rucki promised Sandra that he would not abuse his own children the way he was abused by his father, and the way he witnessed his father abuse his sisters. Cut from the same fabric, David Rucki, in the end, turned out to be just as abusive, and dangerous to his own children as Fred Rucki was to him, and his sisters.
Family Court: The Two Options That Trap Victims of Domestic Violence
“I think that is so sad that as a parent in an abusive relationship, why is it that your two options are: stay, being abused, have your child grow up in this environment filled with insecurities, tension and violence or leave and risk losing your child and continuing to suffer…” – Comment from “Fighting Back” Guest, a Mother also involved in family court who lost custody of her baby to an alleged abuser
Sandra says that her children went to everyone asking for help and that every level of the system has failed to protect them.
Instead of protecting children, family court Judge David L Knutson, Dakota County, has assisted David Rucki in every step through the legal process to continue to abuse, torment and attempt to kill Sandra by making it impossible to survive. Judge Knutson has also endangered the lives of all 5 Rucki children by placing them under the care, custody and ultimately the control of David Rucki. Even as adults the Rucki children have been unable to escape their father and live independent lives of their own due to his violence against them.
Commentary on David Rucki Lawsuit Asks WHY is Rucki targeting an innocent church, it’s pastor and wife… while ignoring a woman who was directly involved in hiding his daughters: Michael Volpe Reveals: Rucki Hires High Buck Attorneys in Lawsuit To Say He is Not Dangerous or Abusive
Michael Volpe reveals another twist to the Grazzini-Rucki case in his latest article: David Rucki Claims Pastor and It’s Church Helped Hide His Daughters
David Rucki filed a lawsuit seeking $50,000 in damages against several people and entities including a church and it’s pastor, and even the pastor’s wife, (as the lawsuit states) for making false claims that he is dangerous, when he is not, and encouraging his daughters to “leave their home”.
Rucki may spend nearly that amount on attorney’s fees alone – high buck Marshall Tanick and Lisa Elliott have been retained to represent Rucki in this lawsuit; the estimated costs of their services exceeds $1,000 per hour. It has not been explained how Rucki can afford legal representation from two attorneys, considering he claims that he is impoverished and is receives welfare.
From Volpe,“Even more shockingly, Rucki continues to qualify for public assistance while being able to hire two attorneys simultaneously.
David Rucki, who received 100% of the marital assets including four homes, nine cars, and a multi-million-dollar business along with sole custody of their five children, still qualified for public assistance through this very program.
‘The Father receives child support services from Dakota County for the joint children pursuant to the Title IV D of the Social Security Act,” said Judge Maria Pastoor in 2016, using this assistance as justification for ordering Sandra Grazzini-Rucki to pay $975 per month in child support…’”
Volpe’s investigation of the case has revealed that,”..there is overwhelming evidence that almost anyone is in danger being in David Rucki’s presence..“ And includes details of Rucki’s long history of violent, and criminal behavior, including,”Ten different people- his ex-wife, five children, two neighbors, in-law, and mailman- all previously successfully took out a restraining order against him..“ If this lawsuit goes forward, more information concerning Rucki’s propensity towards violence, and the abuse of his family, are expected to emerge.
Rucki claims the defendants, which include, Dede Evavold and ex-wife Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, compelled then teenage daughters S.R. and G.R. to “leave their home” and stay on a ranch for abused children by using “false statements” and “false threats” that their father, Rucki, is violent and would hurt them.
According to Volpe,“Plaintiffs Gianna and Samantha were compelled by Defendant Grazzini-Rucki to leave their home from the care of their paternal aunt and to go with Grazzini-Rucki to St. Cloud Sauk Center and White Horse Ranch based on false statements and false threats that they would be subjected to harm by Plaintiff Rucki if they did not do so.” The lawsuit further states.
The lawsuit does not explain why this random church, its pastor and wife would go along with this scheme if indeed the girls were being manipulated into staying there by false threats…”
Both S.R. and G.R. stated the reason they ran away because the family court failed to keep them safe from their abusive father, Rucki, and they felt endangered in the current custody arrangement. Statements made by S.R. and G.R. have been consistent, and have not changed, until Rucki sent them out of state, under the watch of a guard, for “reunification therapy”. S.R. later admitted during a police interview that Rucki “pressured” and “guilted” her into recanting abuse allegations.
The lawsuit filed by Rucki states the defendants failed to notify authorities that S.R. and G.R. were staying on the ranch in violation of a court order. Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and co-defendants Dede Evavold as well as Doug and Gina Dahlen have all been charged with felony deprivation of parental rights, and convicted, for their role in assisting the girls.
The church, and it’s pastor, named in this lawsuit have never been implicated nor charged in connection with the disappearance of S.R. and G.R., who ran away in April 2013 and stayed on the Dahlen’s ranch until November 2015.
Another woman who assisted the runaway Rucki teens, Lori Musolf, has avoided criminal charges entirely. Musolf had extensive conversations with the runaway Rucki sisters in the days after their disappearance. Musolf also arranged the interview, and acted as a go between, for the Rucki sisters to appear on Fox 9 with Trish van Pilsum. She also failed to notify authorities. Will Rucki name Musolf in the lawsuit and seek damages against her???
Stay tuned for developments…
Michigan is just the latest state to consider this fathers’-rights-supported measure, which, despite the euphemistic name, poses a big problem for victims of domestic violence.
Written by Kathi Valeii November 1, 2017
Michigan is considering a shared parenting bill, promoted by fathers’ rights groups, which, as drafted, could be detrimental for victims of domestic abuse.
The bill would require family courts to grant joint legal custody and equal parenting time in custody disputes and divorce. HB 4691 made it out of committee this past summer and is awaiting a hearing in the house. The bill would essentially shift custody decision-making standards from centering the “best interests” of the child to centering the rights of parents. While touted as an equal-parenting initiative, the efforts are spearheaded by father’s rights groups who say that dads don’t don’t get a fair shake in family court. The bill has judges, lawmakers, and domestic abuse advocates concerned about the implications that these blanket rules would have on victims of domestic abuse.
National Parents Organization is the organization that works to advance these shared parenting bills across the country. According to its website, the goal is “to make shared parenting the norm by reforming the family courts and laws in every state.” And, while it strives to maintain an egalitarian agenda of working for parents of all genders, it is a father’s rights group, the grown-up dad version of a men’s rights activist organization, as its original name, Fathers and Families, belies.
The agenda behind shared parenting legislation is important to understand because, while the language around the bills purports to emphasize the rights of both children and parents, these efforts are actually fueled by men’s rights activists who believe that they have been disenfranchised by women and feminism, and that distinction and framework in this discussion matters a lot.
Even without blanket rules that require judges to award equal parenting time, the shift away from awarding sole custody to moms has been increasing, as social norms change. Though not codified in law, gendered language is not used in most state’s guidelines, and the presumption in most states that adhere to “best interests of the child” guidelines is that kids benefit from the presence of both parents.
The shared parenting bill is purportedly a way to reform antiquated and biased family courtroom practices that consider moms as primary caretakers to be the default best interest of the child. But, Rebecca Shiemke, family law attorney specialist for the Michigan Poverty Law Program, says most parents come to agreements about custody on their own, without court intervention. And, she says, gender bias in favor of women in the family courts has not been proven by empirical evidence. In fact, she says, evidence shows the contrary.
A court in Minnesota presumes that joint legal custody is in the child’s best interests. When parents seek joint child custody in Minnesota, the court will consider the following factors prior to reaching a decision:
- The parents’ ability to communicate with one another in decisions that affect the rearing of the child
- Whether it would be harmful to the child if one parent would have sole decision-making responsibility regarding the rearing of the child
- The parents’ willingness to employ cooperative, diverse methods when making decisions that affect the child
- Whether there is a history of domestic violence between the parents
Excerpts: Children in shared custody arrangements “do considerably better on every measure, from school success, to fewer teen pregnancies and drug use, to having optimism for the future,” said Dr. Ned Holstein, a public health practitioner and founder of the National Parents Organization(natioalparentsorganization.org), which aims to reform family court practices.
“If you want to hasten the process of healing, or at least tolerance, the worst thing you can do is declare one person a winner and one person a loser,” he said.
“You’re both winners. You’re both going to be parents. That will actually diminish conflict.”
Read article in its entirety: http://www.startribune.com/rosenblum-new-research-supports-shared-custody-for-children-in-divorce/442255323/
The article is not “new” research. It’s just rhetoric to push a false narrative that shared parenting witll solve all problems. In reality the goal is to keep the problems going-to keep the money flowing. Rosenblum states, “What two factors vastly increase the likelihood of a healthy and happy future for kids after divorce? Mom and Dad.
That’s great if one parent isn’t an abusive and violent person. In family court, domestic violence has been reframed as just a “dispute” and violence is not handled in criminal court where it needs to be.
The systematic mishandling of domestic violence and child molest cases as “custody disputes” is based in a financial corruption scheme that calls for diverting grant program funding through “high conflict” cases, in the guise of promoting “fatherhood” and “shared parenting” post-divorce. Rather than assisting men become responsible parents, “Responsible Fatherhood”, “Access to Visitation Enforcement” (supervised visitation for noncustodial parents), “Child Support Enforcement” and similar federal programs perpetuate abuse of women and children through the legal system. Cindy Ross
There is very little oversight of this money, which means that such programs have gotten away with using fatherhood funds to assist abusive and violent fathers in custody battles against protective mothers.
The vast majority of fathers do not abuse children, and there are many instances where courts have unjustly deprived children of good fathers. The problem is that the programs punish children living with healthy strong mothers by incentivizing courts to cash in by arbitrarily minimizing and even eliminating moms from the picture. Linda Marie Sacks, Co-Chair of the Family Court Committee of the Florida chapter of the National Organization for Women
Excerpts: Numerous reports have identified bias against women and corruption in family courts across the country. In bizarre and illegal rulings, family court judges ignore or deliberately suppress evidence of male perpetrated family violence and child molest. Fathers who are batterers and sex offenders are routinely granted visitation and custody, while mothers and children trying to escape abuse are punished through financial sanctions, loss of custody, supervised visitation, jail and institutionalization.
In the guise of reducing poverty and promoting child welfare, women are forced to stay married and mothers are punished for seeking divorces. In the guise of amicable custody resolution, federal programs enforce the systematic abuse of women and children. The pretense is that government programs produce responsible fathers and healthy families. The reality is that federally funded misogyny and pedophile protection programs are lining the pockets of corrupted court officials and appointees.
RELATED: Happy Mother’s Day