Best parental & juvenile family law books according to redditors

We found 27 Reddit comments discussing the best parental & juvenile family law books. We ranked the 5 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Parental & Juvenile Family Law:

u/inthemud · 30 pointsr/WTF

The grandmother got custody because she asked for it. They gave her temporary custody in the beginning until we could have a full trial. I was shocked but figured there was no way she would win. I was accused of everything from child molestation to, and this is no lie, embezzling money from the Fraternal Order of Police. They accused me of doing drugs and being involved in organized crime. I took two on the spot drug tests on two different occasions and a hair follicle test on another occasion, all court ordered because of their allegations. I had to undergo psychiatric evaluations (15 different tests in all) because of all their accusations. I had Child Protective Services question me and basically raid my house. I have had to turn over ever single financial statement for the past 6 years to prove that I am not involved in any crime ring. And on and on and on. I proved that they were lying after every single allegation but the courts did not care. They kept on pounding me with crap. If they would have accused me of being an alien I probably would have had to go through an autopsy to prove that I was not.

Then, after all of that, the judge just said "I grant physical custody to the maternal grandmother and joint legal custody to the father" (which joint legal custody does not mean crap). No reason was given and to this day I have never been told why. No court document gives any reason as to why I do not have custody. But plenty of people have made a good living off of my case.

The Department of Child Support Enforcement is a big player in all of this because they make alot of money by collecting child support. I do believe that the courts look at who can pay the most in child support to base their decision. I am working on making a documentary about the whole need for Family law reform. If anyone would like to read how screwed up the system is, read Taken Into Custody by Dr. Stephen Baskerville.

u/DualPollux · 8 pointsr/againstmensrights
  1. Full support.

  2. I saw above you don't know what Privilege means. Which means you don't know what intersectionality means. You know that's worriesome right? Here's an exercise: Define racism for me in your own words as you understand it.

  3. "It does happen to me, on a weekly basis." I find this hard to believe. How?

  4. Got some cash? Pick up this book. (No seriously. Buy it. Hell, torrent it if you can) Not for the written material itself but the heavily cited sources in the glossary. That should be what interests you. Secondly

    Custody statistics are warped by the fact that most fathers don't even fight for custody. They move on. Statistically, often to start an entirely new family. This has been counted in the MRA stats as women "winning custody". When Father's actually fight for custody they get full or partial 70% of the time.
u/bvierra · 8 pointsr/law

> As an aside, it's generally impolite to proffer accusatory statements, then say "let's have a civilized discussion." It is, however, ironic.

I apologize, it was 6am and I was probably far too tired to be using reddit... Had yet to even open my 1st red bull of the day.

Re Source (1) I don't own the book so I can't really comment on it :)

Re Source (2) This guys is really, REALLY out there... he seems to want to play both sides of the ball in order to get more clients. It's the women's fault for filling them and lieing, it's the states fault for taking away your kids, how come no one cares about the men, NO ONE FOLLOWS THE LAW. He then gets his legal license suspended for helping a client kidnap her daughter and not report it to the court, and then as she is lieing in front of the judge he doesn't correct her or bring it to the courts attention. Source.

Every source in his article links to another site that somehow is related to each other and none from a reputable non-issue related site. Even where he quotes people, he doesn't quote anything that can be proven he quotes another book that said person X said this. He backs it up with what happened in a hearing with a judge, yet there is no way to fact check it. Hell if this really happened all he had to do was get the court transcription and he would have some proof instead he makes it so you have to believe what he says.

That all being said, he states what he has heard a lot, but no facts. The whole argument that Restraining Orders are just used by women to attack men is false, we all know that because there are so many cooperated cases. The argument that women are to blame just as much as men are when a physical altercation occurs blows my mind.

As a male growing up I was always told that you do not hit a women. I have never once been in a situation where I felt I needed to (or ever did) no matter what I was told because I would likely send one to the hospital or worse. I bounced for a number of years having to break up girl fights when the happened and have had women attack me. I was always able to either resolve the issue or remove myself from the issue without having to raise my hand in anger. Why bring this up you ask, because pretty much every site you have linked too is all about 'mens rights' and how they are being trampled on by women.

Are there people that are abusing the system, I am sure there are. But in order for a system to be broken there has to some type of evidence that it is. The argument of all these people say that there is a problem means jack to anyone but those who agree with what they are saying.

By all means if there is proof of an issue then I will agree things need to be done, however just repeating the same biased crap that others say will get the same response from me... bring me the raw numbers.

u/generibus · 6 pointsr/feminisms

The system is actually not fair. Women often lose custody to fathers when the father asks for it, see this interview with Phyllis Chesler, the author of Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody

u/SleepNowMyThrowaway · 5 pointsr/LesbianActually

Make sure he insists on a paternity test, no matter her threats or BS. It's a long shot in this case, but at least he'll know for sure if it's his.

Life often serves a shit sandwich and it looks like he's got 18 years of them inbound.

> This is making me reevaluate my stance on a lot of things...

For some meaty reading check out Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family. 4.8 stars, and a used copy at your door for 15 bucks.

The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature also sticks in my mind as an eye-opening tome.

Finally, Lex iniqua lex non est. "An unjust law is no law at all."

Your friend will be told many things, and many threats will be applied...he can choose to submit - or not.

We all have that choice.

u/renzy77 · 4 pointsr/TheRedPill

For those who are considering marriage, I suggest you go pick up the book Fathers Rights by Jeffery Leving.

Read the stories of what the men profiled in that book had to go through (and spend in legal fees) just to see their own kids.

Then let it sink in that it can happen to you too.

If you still decide to go through with it (marriage that is), at you'll know what you're getting into.

u/librtee_com · 4 pointsr/AskWomen

> But the father was an adult

But the mother is an adult two. We have a system where, all too often, the mother gets all the decision power, while the father gets all of the court ordered financial responsibility. This simply isn't fair.

> And no one is going to be destitute paying child support, it's normally based on your income.

You would think this is true, and it would certainly make sense, but it simply isn't the case. It is a common practice to base not on income but on 'potential income' - often what is assessed is a huge part (>50%) of pre-tax income, sometimes it is actually more than the total income. (nevermind the horrid job market, 'potentially' you could be making more, so we'll base our judgement on that).

An example:

"Nearly two-thirds of the poor fathers tracked by the study had child support orders that demanded more than half of their income."

This isn't really a man-woman issue; the fact is that our family court system is totally broken, commits outrageous abuses, and needs to be totally replaced.

But I suppose that's a different discussion.

I do suggest at least reading the reviews of the seminal 'Taken Into Custody,' to see what the other side has to say for itself.

u/TerriChris · 4 pointsr/pussypassdenied

Friend. Before you ask an American woman to marry you, I strongly recommend that you sit in your county's Family Court hearing room. The hours are usually Monday through Wednesdays, 9a to 12p. It's also free. Sit up front to better hear the judge.

If you're brave, ask fathers in the hallway, 'How's it going?'

If you're disinclined to visit, read 'Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family' by Dr. Stephen Baskerville.

u/white_cloud · 4 pointsr/MensRights

The fact is that you're just woefully uninformed. It positively oozes out of your comments. You would have to spend a few months just educating yourself on the issues, reading a few books, watching a few videos, poring over a few blogs, to get a grasp of what this is all about.

Honestly, trying to educate you in the comments of this self-post would be like teaching calculus to someone who doesn't know basic arithmetic. You just have to educate yourself.

I can give you some resources to start, but I can't make you read.

u/[deleted] · 3 pointsr/MensRights

Good list. Here's another recent addition:

The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys by David Benatar.

Here's one that anyone contemplating marriage should read:
Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family by Stephen Baskerville

A few more:

"The WAR AGAINST BOYS: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men" by Christina Hoff Sommers

"Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture" and "
Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men" by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

u/woopsnetsend · 3 pointsr/AskReddit

His name is misspelled in wikipedia, his name is Wilbur Streett you might find this useful:

And he is mentioned briefly in this book:

EDIT: There doesn't seem to be any official records online so you might want to request some yourself, read about it here

EDIT 2: There seem to be some videos on youtube so just search his name and they might be of help.

u/roharareddit · 3 pointsr/MensRights

A great book to read concerning the family courts is "Taken Into Custody" by Stephen Baskerville. He is widely regarded as an authority on the toppic.

Aslo, you may want to reach out to these guys. They are a great resource.

Good luch and knock em dead. I love it when students come here.

u/gerrymadner · 2 pointsr/TumblrInAction

For the Prohibition aspect, you can take a look a many of the biographies of early feminist icons, but Susan B. Anthony and Carrie Nation are perfect examples. The ties between women's suffragism and women's temperance movements were legion. The first part of Ken Burns' Prohibition documentary has a decent overview, and this account from a modern feminist has a few more details.

For the "Tender Years" doctrine, the first chapter of Mothers on Trial by Phyllis Chesler has a readable and brief feminist version of the history leading to modern custody law.

For the last, the link between early feminism and eugenics is explored in a good research paper by Mary Zeigler available online. There was also a dust-up over some university with a building named for Carrie Nation a few years back, over the some blatant white supremacist bits in her letters, which I'm sure is Google-able.

u/megazen · 2 pointsr/worldnews

> Although marriage rates have dropped among young adults, it is important to note that most young adults will go on to marry later in life. T

The marriage rate is declining in the USA and other Western countries. You knew that. But what exactly does that mean? Men and women are still marrying. Marriage will continue, won’t it? Let’s take a look at the data for the USA.

The National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia publishes an annual report titled The State Of Our Unions which includes data on US marriage rates since 1960. From 1970 through 2008, the US marriage rate has declined from 76.5 to 37.4 marriages per 1,000 unmarried women — see the chart below:

It’s immediately obvious that the decline of marriage can be divided into two distinct periods. From 1968 through 1977, as the seismic shocks of the sexual revolution and the Vietnam war rolled through our society, the marriage rate tumbled from 79.1 to 63.6. Then from 1980 on, the marriage rate settled into a steady decline to arrive at 37.4 in 2008.

> No Fault Divorce - why is this a strike against marriage?

The reason marriage doesn’t exist is relatively simple; it’s not a contract so it is thereby nothing. The talk of marriage being a “covenant” or something “divinely ordained” is all well and good on a relational or even spiritual level, but on a legal and political level, it’s nothing more than a contract; A contract that binds two people together, ostensibly for the purposes of raising a family.

Legally speaking, contracts–as all contract law states–must hold both parties accountable to the stipulations of that contract. So if one party violates the contract, the contract is now void and the other party can sue for remittance. If the two parties agree to a dissolution and the terms of that dissolution voluntarily, then so be it. But what cannot happen is for one party to break the contract for no reason and be rewarded for it by the other party. To call such a thing a contract is to commit a vicious act of violence against the English language itself.

And here’s where “marriage,” as practiced today, fails miserably. Today we have a regime of unilateral or “no fault” divorce. One party (usually the woman) can divorce their spouse for no reason and be rewarded for it with the kids, the house, child support and perhaps even alimony. Fortunately for the man being divorced, the courts are usually gracious enough to let him keep the mortgage.

I can think of no better resource on the American family courts than Stephen Baskerville’s book Taken into Custody. He documents how fathers (and occasionally mothers) are routinely separated from their children, forced to pay exorbitant sums of child support, forced to pay for attorney’s, psychotherapists and social workers they have not hired, jailed without trial for being poor (the modern resurrection of debtor’s prisons), prohibited from publicly discussing the trial and an assortment of other outrages.

This process was not agreed upon up front as a method of arbitration, nor is there a stipulation in a marriage contract for it. Indeed, who in their right mind would sign a contract if it was explicit and honest about how the divorce process would go down? Instead, the extraordinarily corrupt family courts do whatever they want through simple fiat.

> Adultery should be a CRIMINAL offence? You really want to make, at the very minimum,

No, but it should be a serious breach of marriage, when someone commits adultery, and not treated as a non-issue in case of divorce as is happening a lot with no-fault divorce.

> Alimony - in exchange for money, you want the other party to furnish sex. This is prostitution and is illegal in most states.

No, what needs to end is unreasonably high alimony payments to an ex.

> Paternity fraud - kids see you as their father if you act as their father. So what if later you find out you didn't furnish the actual sperm?

No, when a man is tricked into raising children that are not biologically his, the psychological impacts can be disastrous, and that is not what he signed up or agreed to do unless she told him upfront.

Currently, women are not required to tell a man that he is not the only possible father of a child. This has creted a large problem, where men nation wide are being duped in to accepting responsibility for a child they may not otherwise taken responsibility for.

It's estimated that tens of thousands of British men are raising children that they believe to be their own, but aren't!

The lack of Paternity Fraud legislation is devastating not only to the fathers wrongly named but also to the lives of all children within a family where this horrendous deception is allowed to occur.

u/Bobsutan · 2 pointsr/IAmA

Because she's the breadwinner. That's all it's really about. However, the problem is lots of courts treat the case as though dad is the primary breadwinner.

You should read the book Taken Into Custody by Stephen Baskerville. It goes into great detail how fucked up family courts are and how states getting federal money for CS collections is gargantuan conflict of interest. It's in the state's best interest to not grant custody arrangements that would result in little or no child support, so you've got a system that's greasing it's own pockets by busting up families and systemically placing children with the lower earing parent. Historically the lower earning parent was the mother, but it's not always the case.

u/3825 · 1 pointr/MensRights

In case somebody comes in and has no clue, here's the link I guess

u/HowardB · 1 pointr/fathers4equality

Here is the letter Dr Canning sent to Derryn Hinch. It provides some useful links to reliable DV statistics.

Dear Derryn ,

Thanks for the opportunity to speak with your yesterday, sadly it appears your mind was already made up.

It’s not surprising the feminist dominated discourse around DV has done a fine job at promoting false statistics and deceptions for their own ideological benefits and to entice men like yourself into believing that women in general remain blameless victims, unaccountable in any way for their own situations and actions, and in need of your protection.

Apologies you confused me at the start of the interview by quoting raw numbers for sexual assault, my memory is pretty good but I was looking at the top of the list of ABS stats I had provided.

As promised here follows some references, I doubt you will seriously peruse them but perhaps one of your researchers may take a look.

The concept of legal malpractice for not advising taking out a Domenstic Violence protection order in separation / divorce proceeding was raised by Stephen Baskerville in his 2007 book Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family, of course this largely relates to the situation in the litigation capital of the world the USA, but Australia follows suit in most thing. This book is well worth a read if you are at all interested in the degradation of the family and fatherhood and it potential impact on the future.

Prof. Parkinsons senate submission which cites the view of magistrate regarding false allegations of DV is available here

The best summaries detailing the extensive data confirming gender symmetry in the perpetration of partner violence are Straus’s article I mentioned in the interview available at and Martin Fiebert’s annotated bibliography available at

To summarise there is overwhelming evidence that is ignored by the feminist ideologues that women are as likely as men to be violent in intimate relationships, and that means they hit first. No one denies that “violence against women” is abhorrent, criminal and must be stopped, but from the equality perspective violence against men in all its forms should be seen in the same way.

There are virtually no services for men, and prevailing community attitudes deny men who are victims any empathy or acknowledgement. Please check out the Australian web site you may be surprised by what you learn.

Women are half the problem and its time the small percentage of women who are violent are held to account just as the small percentage of men who are violent should be.

Derryn I would be happy to talk again privately or on air should you wish.

With good wishes

Greg Canning

u/underpopular · 1 pointr/underpopular

>Millions of children have been born in the United States with the help of cutting-edge reproductive technologies, much to the delight of their parents. But alarmingly, scarce attention has been paid to the lax regulations that have made the U.S. a major fertility tourism destination. And without clear protections, the unique rights and needs of the children of assisted reproduction are often ignored.
>Babies of Technology, hardcover out April 4th from Yale University Press, is the first to consider the voice of the child in discussions about regulating the fertility industry. The controversies are many. Donor anonymity is preventing millions of children from knowing their genetic origins. Fertility clinics are marketing genetically enhanced babies. Career women are saving their eggs for later in life. And Third World women are renting their wombs to the rich. Meanwhile, the unregulated fertility market charges forward as a multi-billion-dollar industry.
>Who will protect our babies of technology? Ask me about that, or anything.

u/RoundSimbacca · -5 pointsr/law

> I am not sure how the law could actually be clearer on this... it has a 2 pronged test at the hearing with the burden of proof directly on the petitioner and not on the the person subject to the GVRO.

There are two problems, one which I already identified: courts wanting to do this "just to be safe." (Judges apparently are taught to grant just about every ex parte order ^1 ^2 for just this reason.)

The second reason is that people lie in court. I suspect even you know that even he-said-she-said often passes muster for "clear and convincing."

> Please show me where this is, I have read it over multiple times and have yet to come across any language that has to do with exempting anyone from this at all.

Apparently it's confusion with Conneticut's proposed law. My apologies. In any case, I do have reservations with how the police will be treated with "professional courtesy."

> Except you have no facts to back any of the accusations up you just expect people to accept them because they are accepted in your circle.

Please take another look at the links I provided in my other post. Let me ask: of the 37%(!) of false allegations, how many do you think would have been accompanied by a restraining order? How many do you think were prosecuted after being shown as unsubstantiated? The Family Law section of the California State Bar itself recognizes that the RO process, of which is what the GVRO is modeled after, is being abused:

> ... such protective orders are readily ordered, frequently without actual proof, such that extending the duration would overly penalize and prejudice parties who were not guilty of the allegations.


> This isn't /r/politics or /r/gunlovers... I get that people do that crap over there, but let's try and have civilized debates in some part of reddit.

As an aside, it's generally impolite to proffer accusatory statements, then say "let's have a civilized discussion." It is, however, ironic.

Such is reddit, I suppose.

u/TheScamr · -10 pointsr/news

THe book Women on Trial does a good job showing that when men ask for full custody they get it.

Feminist have created a false narrative that men don't get custody so hey won't even ask, because in a fair court of law it is obvious women are inferior single parents.