This particular branch of our justice courts in not unlike the others in the sense that justice has been perverted. It has its root in the "philosophy of theft" known as Marxism - from each according to ability, to each according to need. This of course serves the liar, oh excuse me, lawyer community well as they facilitate the transfer of wealth and receive great fees in so doing.

There may be more defenders of the family court system than detractors, a nd that just might be due to the appearance of "equity", or greater good, that comes from Marxist thought. However this system acts as another tool to destroy the natural bonds that hold families and societies together, and destroys freedom and responsibility at the same time.

Up to this point I have given my opinion based upon my conclusions. I will now present to you some other facts. The family court system claims to be based on the best interest of the child. It is presumed that the best interest of the child is to be with the maternal parent for the preponderance of the time. Women can claim, falsely, almost with impunity, that the father has molested the child. Many of these fathers lose all visitation rights. The system does this because it is presumed to be better to err on the side of caution.

Most young men in our society who marry and procreate are running a great risk of ending up in an indentured servitude ordered by this family court. Many women run the risk of being dumped on the welfare roles for the same cause.

Do you agree that one of the reasons families stay together is because of necessity to survive? What happens to that "necessity factor" when the government will provide the necessities to survive to single mothers? What happens to the attitude among men of, "I have to stick this marriage out or my children will starve without me"? Do you think that government interference in our lives in this area has anything to do with the explosion of the number of divorces?

Do you think it possible that thousands - if not millions - of women file for divorce today simply because they can. When children are involved the man will be required to pay child support regardless of the reason for the divorce. Do you think that men leave their families and responsibilities to the state because they can?

Does it benefit lawyers to have a system that creates conflict between parents in a divorce? Does the presumption of the bulk of the "time share" going to mother bring conflict? Did you know that the child support figures are based on time-share plus the two incomes? Is it possible that this system penalizes the responsible person and aids the irresponsible? Do you think the premise that the life styles of each parent's home should be made to be as equal as possible has any real root in the best interest of the child, or is rooted in creating conflict between the parties as to the transfer of wealth?

If you look at this system, you will see that it rewards irresponsibility and punishes responsibility. This most often works to the detriment of both parties. The irresponsible man who "leaves his family to the state" - or others - to care for, is the same deadbeat that the state is not successful in forcing support out of and he skates. Who suffers?

Or the opposite situation, whereby the man is very responsible but his wife decides she would rather have the freedom to do as she wishes and not be tied to her husband, so she divorces him, and makes him, through the power of the state, pay and pay and pay till he is left with little or nothing. Who suffers here?

Is the answer to get rid of "no fault" divorce? Is the answer to get rid of welfare and forced support? Is the answer to base this system on the premise that each parent has an inalienable right to an equal time-share with his or her progeny?

Remove the conflict, remove the profit for the parasitical lawyer class and watch this tyranny melt.

Mike Benoit