logo for the website of Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | RSS button | Share


Fathers for Life Site-Search

2013 04 15: Symantec (makers and distributors of Norton Antivirus) and O2 now filter/block the website of Fathers for Life and *BOTH* of its affiliated blogs. Click for details.


 
 Site Map (very large file)
 Table of Contents
 Activism
 Children—Our most valued assets?
 Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
 Child Support
 Civil Rights & Social Issues
 Families
 Family Law
 Destruction of Families
 Fatherhood
 Fatherlessness
 Divorce Issues
 Domestic Violence
 Feminism
 Gay Issues
 Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
 Health
 Help Lines for Men
 History
 Humour
 Law, Justice and The Judiciary
 Mail to F4L
 Men's Issues
 Suicide
 The Politics of "Sex"
 Our Most Popular Pages
 Email List
 Links
 References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Be notified of
page updates
it's private
powered by
ChangeDetection

BADGE
 of
RECOGNITION

censored-stamp

Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blog are being slandered and censored. (Click for Details)

If you are a fathers-rights or pro-family activist, then it is quite likely that your website or blog is being, slandered and censored, too. (Click to check that out)

 
 
 

VA Court of Appeals condones willful lawlessness


Forwarded FYI from Fathers for Virginia and ACFC

BTW:  While fathers might view the decision below as being bad for fathers, it bears far deeper consequences for the public's increasingly realistic distrust and disrespect for Courts.  Any Court which openly promotes flagrant lawlessness brings tremendous dishonor on thelegal  profession and the integrity of  the Courts, and harms the citizens of the State.  The Bar Association in Virginia should look into these judges, who should be disciplined.

____________________

In February of 1999, The Virginia Supreme Court ruled in Parrish v. Spaulding [http://www.courts.state.va.us/txtops/1980913.txt] that mothers do not have to obey court orders.  In that case, the mother was under an order prohibiting her from moving with the children. She moved anyway. The Supreme Court said "that's okay, mommies do not have to obey court orders."

____________________

In July of 2000, the Virginia Court of Appeals has once again affirmed that mommies do not have to obey court orders and that statutes involving the "friendly parent doctrine" and visitation rights only apply against fathers, not mommies.  In Cintron v. Long,  [http://www.courts.state.va.us/txtops/2169992.txt] the mother refused to allow court ordered visitation.  Two court-appointed psychologists also pointed out that the mother had alienated the child against the father and that the mother was poisonous to the child. The trial court gave custody to the father. 
   The Court of Appeals reversed and chastised the trial court for changing custody "merely" because mommy never obeyed any court order.


The clear message is that only men need to obey court orders.  It is also clear that women do not need to obey court orders and hurting children on purpose is condoned and encouraged by the Virginia Judicial hierarchy.

See also: Family Law — Table of Contents

__________________
Posted 2000 10 28
Updates:
2003 05 02 (added reference to Family Law — Table of Contents