PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.
Showing posts with label FATHER'S RIGHTS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FATHER'S RIGHTS. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 9, 2018


Sometime in the Summer of 2013, Jennifer Verraneault, a family court reform activist, contacted me and asked to meet with me to discuss family court reform.  Her partner, Jerry Mastrangelo had been engaged in a lengthy court battle to see his three triplets towards whom he had inexplicably been denied access.  

A year prior, she had taken the free Guardian Ad Litem class for the State of Connecticut and had been able to obtain certification despite not being a lawyer or having any background as a mental health professional.  In fact, to my knowledge, I wasn't even clear that she had a College degree.  I had also tried to sign up for that class, but the CT Judicial Branch had refused me admission, perhaps because I did have a college degree.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017


Testimony Opposing
SB 1049, AAC Registration Fees for Counsel and Guardians ad Litem for Minor Children and Other Requirements for Certain Family Relations Matters
Finance, Revenue & Bonding Committee April 17, 2017

Text Originally Located at the following link:

Good afternoon Senator Fonfara, Senator Frantz, Representative Rojas and members of the committee. CT Coalition Against Domestic Violence (CCADV) is the state’s leading voice for victims of domestic violence and those who serve them. Our members provide essential services to nearly 40,000 victims of domestic violence each year. Services provided include 24-hour crisis response, emergency shelter, safety planning, counseling, agency/staff training, support groups and court advocacy.

We oppose SB 1049

Sunday, March 5, 2017


The Commander, "The Handmaiden's Tale"
The way Fathers in CT want things to be!
In Margaret Atwood's dystopic novel "The Handmaiden's Tale", a series which airs soon on Hulu, women have been reduced to baby making machines in a society where men have seized full political control  of the entire United States.  Impossible?  Unlikely?  Don't be so sure.

"Handmaidens" whose sole purpose is to give birth
in Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaiden's Tale"
Recently, I was at the Legislative Office Building with some friends when a person showed me current 2017 legislative proposals, which, appallingly enough, sketch out a strategic plan that will essentially crush mothers in Family Court and lead to a situation where men seize control of family court processes and essentially remove mothers from the lives of their children in droves. 

Saturday, March 4, 2017


By Doreen Ludwig,
Author of "Motherless America: Confronting Welfare's Fatherhood Custody Program", see link:
Legislating Shared Parenting Awards Male Control
Fathers have succeeded in expanding public acceptance of shared parenting; creating the impression that shared parenting is the best situation for children whose parents no longer live together. Shared parenting has become so culturally normalized that in the Fall of 2016, Time Magazine endorsed it in “The Growing Case for Shared Parenting After Divorce” by Belinda Luscombe, going so far as to quote the nefarious father’s rights activist Jeffrey Leving. 

Monday, April 27, 2015


John Di Biase Jr.
17 Newton Street
Meriden,CT. 06450-4414
May 29, 2010
RE: Dismissal of my Discrimination 
Dear G.A.O.:
                            I received a certified letter from our state's Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities which was mailed May 24, 2010. My Reconsideration Request for my Gender and Disability complaint against the Ct. Judicial Branch of Danbury, CT. for discrimination in my child custody case for which I have trying to regain custody of my now 14 year old son.   I was a stay at home Father for three years from Dec 25, 1995 until January 4, 1999   when judge Howard Moragahn gave my ex-wife Elena Fernandez Di Biase sole custody of our   son.  She has used my disability against me for the last 11 years to keep me from getting either more time with our son or custody. I was never determined to be an unfit parent so why did the judge rule in her favor ?  It came out in the pendente lite hearings that our son in fact flourished under my care. No harm ever came to our son as claimed by my ex-wife and her legal aide attorney. I was never informed of my rights under the A.D.A. by  the court nor my attorney.
                  In fact myself and an ADA advocate William Mulready worked with the Judicial Branch to help them   come into compliance with the ADA.  There wasn't proper notification at the time of my hearings and there were no ADA coordinators at the court house to assist me. There was only one ADA coordinator in the state for the Judicial Branch and she was located in Hartford,CT. at the Human Resources department for employees not for the general public. One notice the Judicial Branch had was in the court in Litchfield,CT. didn't even have the correct address on it. We got them to correct that when we noticed the neglect.  William  Mulready's case was in Litchfield Court. His family was also a special needs family and he wasn't aware of his Rights either at the time of his case and trial.
              This neglect by the state of Connecticut has a disparate impact on thousands of disabled persons going though the civil and criminal court system for many years in the past.
              Our states practice of giving custody to women more than 90 % of the time is an act of prima facie act of discrimination and has a disparate impact on men and parents with disabilities.
              Our states office of  O.P.A. also  refused me legal representation in my case as I am unable to adequately represent myself because of my hidden disabilities. I have been abused and discriminated by a number of judges over the last 11 years.  Twice the courts have taken away my right to file motions without the permission of the court.  The court is more concerned about winning legal battles against me than seeing that my son's best interests are protected which means that he is given equal access to both his parents. I was our sons primary  caregiver for the three most important, informative years of his life, from birth until he was three years of age. He has suffered much psychological harm because of the deprivation of his father and because of the alienating behavior of his mother.
               I also filed a complaint with the D.O.J. to no avail.  My CT. C.H.R.O. number is 0920396 It was dismissed because they say I was two days late filing my Reconsideration Request. I though that we had filed it on time. Again, the state cares more about winning legal battles against me than seeing I receive justice.  Also I filed a discrimination complaint against the Meriden Police department and CT.'s D.C.F for illegal home invasion and our Attorney General got the case dismissed, again another case of injustice.
Yours Truly,
John  Di Biase

Thursday, April 16, 2015


Reporter Ashby Jones of The Wall Street Journal reports as follows:
"Some of the biggest battles over child custody are playing out not in courtrooms, but in statehouses.
Prompted partly by fathers concerned that men for too long have gotten short shrift in custody decisions, about 20 states are considering measures that would change the laws governing which parent gets legal and physical control of a child after a divorce or separation.
The laws generally encourage judges to adopt custody schedules that maximize time for each parent. Some of the measures, such as those proposed in New York and Washington state, take an additional step by requiring judges to award equal time to each parent unless there is proof that such an arrangement wouldn’t be in a child’s best interests. 
Critics of these bills contend that they threaten to take discretion away from judges and risk giving leverage to abusive men. They also say the laws are poorly targeted because typically the only custody cases that end up in court are ones in which former spouses are too hostile toward each other to effectively practice shared parenting anyway."
For the rest of the article, please click on the link below:

Monday, March 9, 2015


According to          
"With little public attention, the Obama administration has been changing America’s child-support enforcement. The most recent Census Bureau report found that in 2011 fewer than 50% of single mothers had child-support orders—down from almost 60% in 2003. At least part of this decline reflects the administration’s shifting the focus from helping single parents with children toward helping absent parents who say they can’t afford payments. This is good news for delinquents, but bad news for children already coping with not having two parents at home.

Making absent parents (usually fathers) provide financial help for their children used to have bipartisan support and plenty of media attention. Begun in 1975 and strengthened by the 1996 welfare reform, child-support enforcement is one of the few antipoverty programs that stresses personal responsibility over government dependency. State child-support enforcement agencies—with federal funding—use wage garnishments and other techniques to hold absent parents responsible for contributing financially to the care of their children."

For more on this topic, please click on the link below:

Monday, January 12, 2015


Karin Wolf, a New Jersey resident and mother of two, has filed A federal lawsuit against Judges of the Bergen County Family Court, and N.J. Appellate Court,  Governor Chris Christie, the State of New Jersey, DYFS caseworkers, Court Vendors, and others requesting damages and declaratory and injunctive relief in connection to her custody case. 

Ms. Wolf, who is a victim of domestic violence, and who obtained a divorce decree based upon charges of extreme cruelty against her ex-husband, brings her case under U.S. Code Title 42 Secs. 1983 and 1985, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) 18  U.S. Code Secs.  1961-1968, and the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1951.  She is among many family court litigants throughout the country who have come to see the family court system as being in the center of a racket that conspires to take children away from fit mothers and transfer them over to the full custody of their abusers. 

As Karin Wolf explains in her Complaint, "Defendants are engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity and operating Rico Enterprises in the Family Court; through a calculated system of eugenics and social engineering; and dealing in obscene matters of human trafficking, child pornography and child prostitution, for motives both economic and non-economic." 

In her Complaint, Ms. Wolf talks about state government actors and court operatives acting in such a way as to "pre-determine the winner" in family court cases without due process as happened in her case.  She also complains that the family court conducts itself in such a way as to impose a "pay to play" policy on litigants and to promote "conflict for cash" while engaging in "emotional blackmail."  I am sure all these terms are very familiar to victims of family court here in Connecticut! 

Further, I think many Connecticut Family Court litigants can recognize as a common experience how badly Ms. Karin Wolf was treated as a self-represented party.  She states that when she acted on her own behalf Court Personnel behaved towards her with contempt and denied her due process rights because she is a self-represented party who "wasn't and isn't paying money into a corrupt system of racketeering, influence, and extortion in the Bergen County Family Court." 

Like many of the mothers in Connecticut who face family court judges who are ignorant of the reality of domestic violence, Karin Wolf reports that the defendants in her case "used retaliation, threats, and coercive control" against her and "deliberately acted obtuse to family violence, ignoring and minimizing it to subvert and circumvent established principles, codes and laws on child abuse and domestic violence."  She also talked about how the defendants provoked family violence so as to subject Ms. Wolf and her children to ongoing intervention from court vendors who then made considerable amounts of money from those interventions.  

In doing so, they invoked Richard Gardner's quack theories of parental alienation as a means to label Ms. Wolf, remove the children from her custody, and transfer them to the custody of their abuser. 

When she tried to defend herself, the Court denied her access to the child support, alimony and attorneys fees which were necessary for her to obtain legal representation.  This was also connected to a policy of refusing to allow Karin adequate discovery. 

Finally, Karin Wolf alleges that the actions of family court professionals are aligned with the nationwide father's rights agenda which is working to "resurrect Lord Hale's Law and the Rule of Thumb, to assist fathers in hiding income and assets, and avoid paying child support, without any concern for their children." 

Ms. Karin Wolf's case is not unique among protective mothers who have ended up losing custody after years of harassment and legal abuse.  Ms. Wolf's journey originally began when she fled her marital home on September 29, 2006 after several incidents of domestic violence and obtained a final judgment of divorce under NJ Rule 2A:34-2(c) having established in court a cause of action for divorce of extreme cruelty. 

Nonetheless, subsequent to the divorce, Ms. Wolf experienced ongoing legal and interpersonal harassment from her ex-husband for years afterwards and finally lost custody of her two children to her abuser on August 30, 2013. 

She lost custody in a flawed proceeding where the Court allowed  her attorney, Alexandra Stremler, Esq., to back out of the trial moments before the hearing without any advanced notice and forced Ms. Wolf to proceed as a self-represented party even though the attorney had failed to appear with copies of her exhibits which were essential to the conduct of a fair trial. Even more troubling the trial proceeded forward despite the fact that Attorney Stremler had failed to submit the trial summary indicating what evidence and witnesses she intended to present to the Court which left Ms. Wolf in disarray just as she was required to proceed to trial as a self-represented party without any opportunity to prepare. 

Karin Wolf describes the presiding judge in the matter,  Judge Gerald C. Escala, as being "rude, intimidating, and contemptuous" and further she describes him as "belittling her attempts to present her case."  Many of us who have represented ourselves in family court have had similar experiences when we have attempted to defend ourselves. 

I have to commend Ms. Karin Wolf for making this attempt to take her case to federal court when the state court and its associated vendors and state agencies have so grossly failed to accord her the fairness, due process, and justice to which she is entitled as a mother and as an American citizen.  Even though she is a single individual, she is speaking for the many thousands and thousands of mothers throughout this country who have been falsely accused, harassed, bullied, and legally abused by their perpetrator ex-husbands, and become victim of our corrupt family court and child protective systems. 

I am aware that in federal court Ms. Wolf's Complaint will face a daunting round of motions to dismiss and we can only hope that it survives to the point where she can present her evidence and obtain a fair hearing.  I admire Ms. Wolf for her strength, her courage, and her determination as well as her powerful dedication to her children.  As this case proceeds through federal court, I will continue to report back on her progress. 

For more news and information in regard to Ms. Karin Wolf, please click on the link below:

Wednesday, November 12, 2014


From "The Rebel Pundit", see the report below:

"Up until two years ago, Ted Taupier didn’t spend much time thinking about the meaning of his first, second, eighth, and fourteenth amendment rights, but as he’s watched all those rights disappear along with his parental rights, Taupier tells RebelPundit he’s had a first hand look at the cruelty of an unchecked and unaccountable court system."

For more information on this situation, please click on the link below:

Thursday, October 31, 2013


For those of you who are interested in the kind of work being done in support of fatherhood in the State of Connecticut, please click on the link to the Legislative Task Force on Fatherhood which is below:


Sen. Gary D. LeBeau

Rep. Bruce V. Morris

Sen. Edward Meyer

Sen. John A. Kissel

Rep. Charles D. Clemons

Sen. Antonietta "Toni" Boucher