Divorce Corp (2014) - full transcript
More money flows through the family courts, and into the hands of courthouse insiders, than in all other court systems in America combined - over $50 billion a year and growing. Through extensive research and interviews with the nation's top divorce lawyers, mediators, judges, politicians, litigants and journalists, this documentary uncovers how children are torn from their homes, unlicensed custody evaluators extort money, and abusive judges play god with people's lives while enriching their friends. This explosive documentary reveals the family courts as unregulated, extra-constitutional fiefdoms. Rather than assist victims of domestic crimes, these courts often precipitate them. And rather than help parents and children move on, as they are mandated to do, these courts - and their associates - drag out cases for years, sometimes decades, ultimately resulting in a rash of social ills, including home foreclosure, bankruptcy, suicide and violence. Solutions to the crisis are sought out in countries where divorce is handled in a more holistic manner.
(music plays)
50% of US marriages end in a divorce.
Divorce is more than
a 50 billion dollar a year industry.
(music plays)
This is why
People get married,
they get divorced.
Since I started in 1949,
when I passed a wedding,
I'd think to myself,
"That's inventory."
The statistics are
that more money passes
through family law court than
all the other courts combined.
The more you charge, the
more people are willing to pay,
because they feel that
money equals skill.
You know, we aren't much
different from any other
segment of society, in terms of
money calling the shots.
I've had cases where they've
spent $20 million in fees.
The real standard is how
much money can we make
off these people. (laughs)
That's the standard.
There's an expression that
people can get as much justice
as they can afford and
that most people cannot
afford any justice at all.
What's wrong with
that? It's a business.
This is a business. This
is not social services.
(music plays)
DIVORCE CORP.
People thought we were crazy,
getting married after just
three months of dating,
but she had children
from another marriage
and I had my son from
a previous marriage
and we just thought, you know,
this would be a great way
that we could combine
our families
and raise all these
children together
and we were like
the Brady Bunch.
People called us the
Byron Bunch. (laughs)
I just couldn't
have been happier.
I've got this wonderful
new wife and a new family
that we're starting together.
For whatever reason, it
just didn't work out.
The biggest single reason
for divorce in this country
is marriage.
Each year, about 4 million
people get married in the US.
Although some people
plan for months,
a basic marriage ceremony can
be completed in ten minutes.
All that's really required
is proof of age
and a $50 fee for
a marriage license,
but getting divorced
is far from easy.
Litigation lasted
for over a year.
17 months for a
23 month marriage.
We were only
married for a year.
We've been going through our
divorce for a year and a half now.
I was married
only four months
and my divorce has lasted now
over six and a half years.
I'll be close to eight years.
Eight years.
Why is divorce so difficult?
(rock n' roll music plays)
Marriage in the US
was once considered
a lifetime commitment.
A divorce was something that
regular folks just didn't do.
Back then, divorce
was considered dirty,
both for the people
getting a divorce
and for the lawyers handling it.
There could not be a divorce
unless there was fault.
Fault usually was either
adultery or cruelty,
which was the word for abuse.
But the feminist movement
of the 1960s began
to change the way Americans
viewed women in the home
and in the workplace.
Activists considered
marriage a low-paying job,
a trap that you couldn't escape.
Because proving fault created
such a barrier to divorce,
in 1969 then governor of
California, Ronald Reagan,
responded to increasing
political pressure
by signing the first
no-fault divorce act.
The concept quickly spread to
most of the other 49 states.
The divorce revolution, the
great increase in divorce
that happened in the
70s, happened in part
because of no-fault.
Although no-fault laws made
it easier to file for divorce,
they didn't make it easier
to complete a divorce.
Even if your spouse is
in total agreement
and wants to end things
on a happy note,
you need the approval
of a family court,
presided over by a
family court judge.
But family courts can
be like the wild west,
because certain rights provided
by the US Constitution
do not apply in family court.
The Constitution states that
you're entitled to a trial
by jury and an attorney
if you can't afford one.
All kinds of basic
mechanisms that exist
in the criminal and civil
courts in this country
don't exist in the
family courts.
The family courts call
themselves courts of equity,
not courts of law.
Although it's not
written anywhere
in our federal or
state constitutions,
family courts have given
themselves a pass on juries.
Juries keep you
keep you honest,
because they're 12 people who
are going to make a decision,
based on how they
look at things.
The judge is a jury of one.
In a family courtroom, the
judge dominates the preceding.
In my world, where
there's no jury,
you're the decision maker.
I'm more comfortable with that.
In family court, you
don't have the right
to an attorney if you
can't afford one.
Litigants have no
right to counsel.
The right to an
attorney did not apply.
and The Constitution of
the United States did not apply.
One would think in a court
where there is no jury
and where you're not given
the right to an attorney,
our government would
simplify the rules
and make it easy to
represent yourself.
At a moment's notice,
the judge will recite a civil code,
a procedure code, or a family
local rule code or whatever.
You'll ask for a clarification
and the judge won't give you
the clarification.
It always comes back as,
"Well, you should know".
We use terms like
"order to show cause",
"notice of motion".
They're not really
user-friendly,
except for attorneys,
who are familiar with them.
The court is not
a friendly environment.
People are there without
an attorney, for a judge,
they're an irritant, because
they don't know the system,
they don't know the procedure,
they don't know how to do this,
they don't know how to do that.
If you are a
litigant who is acting
as his or her own attorney
in a family court,
you can often turn
the judge against you,
just by means of
the way you behave,
your lack of familiarity with
etiquette of the courtroom,
speaking out of turn.
They don't know
what's going on
and there's nobody
there to guide them.
When you ask for help
within the courthouse,
Oh, I'm sorry,you have to go see
the court facilitator over there
take a number and if your number
doesn't come up in eight hours,
well, come back again
and try over again.
So I called around the law
library in Sacramento,
"Well, we can't give
you that information."
Wow! What is this? This is like
top secret, priest-class stuff.
The rules of the family
courts are documented
in the family codes
of each state,
but the size and complexity
of these codes
is often overwhelming.
This is a civil code from when
I entered law school in '46
The family law section in this
whole book is right there.
That's it and this
is thick paper.
This is the family code 2011.
Thin paper, small
print. Look at this.
So why would our government
make the family court
so complicated for
the average citizen?
People often say
a law is so complicated,
lawyers make law so complicated,
and Congress makes law
or legislators make law
so complicated and there
is some truth to that.
You know, there's the old
saying from Charles Dickens
that "The business of the law is
to make business for itself".
The more complicated and
specialized family law is,
the more you need an attorney.
The lawyers are the legislators.
They make the laws.
The more laws and the
more complex they are,
the more we have to pay them.
With all this complexity, it
seems like you have no choice
but to hire a lawyer, but this
isn't some huge legal battle
between two massive
corporations, this is divorce.
These lawyers can't
cost that much money.
The rate was $600 an hour.
In the Gold Coast, Fairfield
County, it's $650 an hour.
I'm not saying I'm
worth $700 an hour,
but that's what I charge.
My rate is $950 an hour.
That's for one lawyer.
They had assistants,
people filing.
I was being charged for multiple
people working at the firm.
They said,
"Tell me your hourly rate".
I add it all together and
I said to the litigants,
"I want you to know
the cost is $27,000 an hour."
I said, "After two hours,
we will have spent more
than most people in this
courthouse make in a year".
I have to work 25 hours
to pay for one hour
of an arrogant
attorney's time. 25 to 1.
It comes down to,
always, money.
With so much
money on the line,
why don't couples
force their lawyers
to finish divorces quickly?
It actually has to do with the
financial setup of a marriage.
When you file for divorce, money
from both parties is looked on
as a shared pool of
cash that's available
for either side's
attorney to spend.
The first thing that lawyers
do is find out exactly
how much money you
and your spouse have.
You fill out an income
expense declaration, basically,
just to find out how
much you're worth.
What your assets are,
what you've encumbered.
How much you
have in the bank,
how many cars you have.
They want an entire picture of
all your financial assets,
because they want
to size you up.
Once the lawyers find out
how much each side is worth,
they tempt their clients
with the prospect
of getting more money
through fighting.
It has become about
winning and that's both
from the economic
perspective and from
this, sort of, emotional perspective.
What you have is a tinderbox
and virtually anything
can ignite that tinderbox
and the lawyers, frankly,
often are throwing
gasoline on that fire.
We're going to fight you,
and even if you win,
you will think you lost.
What you wind up with is
people feeling antagonized
by the tactics of the
lawyers on the other side.
If you and your spouse
hate each other like poison
and want to get out of the
hellhole you call a marriage,
you've come to the right place.
You've got questions,
we have answers.
I'm Reno Brackman and this
is Brutal Divorce Tactics.
The system is an adversarial,
polarized system.
It turns out the court system
is designed to create conflict.
Many lawyers encourage
their clients
to be as aggressive as possible,
tempting them with
winning more money.
And once someone starts making
accusations towards you
in court, you have no
choice but to fight back,
because if you don't,
you could lose it all.
Your house, your money, your
possessions, your children,
everything.
If one side is being
reasonable and the other side
is being totally unreasonable
and greedy and miserable,
in thus lies the problem.
Basically what the court does
is it creates a battleground,
in which each side hurls
the harshest accusations
they can come up with,
because they're desperate to win.
There's nothing secret,
everybody's sexual habits
and propensities and
dirty little lack of hygiene,
every detail, their journal
and their photographs of them
with weird toys strapped
to them come into court.
If you want to enter the circus
and you put on the outfit
and you want to be a
great clown and entertain,
the system will certainly
accommodate you.
You're getting billed by
the hour and it gets expensive
and people need to realize that.
The more acrimonious it is,
the smaller the things
that the parties are
willing to fight for,
the more they get to bill.
Attorneys get
paid by the hour.
The more accusations they make
towards the other side,
the more things they
ask you to send them,
the more papers they
file with the courthouse,
the more they earn and
the more it costs you.
One party files something,
you have to respond.
If you don't respond, you
either lose by default
or if it's a contempt petition,
you land yourself in jail.
You're a lawyer, you
write a nasty letter,
her lawyer has to
write a nasty letter.
It's just a great system.
Essentially paper
the other side
until they can't
take it anymore.
It's just paperwork after
paperwork after paperwork
after paperwork.
And there are no limits.
When attorneys get started,
they have no incentive to stop
until you run out of money.
You have lawyers who
are in it for the money,
who are greedy, who
will milk a case.
If your case is
taking years and years,
then that means some attorney
is just putting in a lot
of frivolous motions
to delay the case.
In the 60s, it'd take
a few months, a year.
Now, cases drag on five,
six, seven, eight years.
Which is extremely expensive,
as you can imagine.
The attorneys definitely
don't want to settle the cases,
because once they do,
their income stream has been cut off.
And the lawyers have been
granted complete immunity
in family court.
A lawyer can say or do anything,
no matter how false or cruel
and waste tens of thousands
of dollars intentionally
and maliciously and
they cannot be sued
for malicious prosecution
or excessive litigation.
I'm not aware of any case
where a lawyer was sued
for being overly zealous.
Did you ever hold
an attorney in contempt?
No.
I really didn't have
the heart to do that.
I would see them privately maybe
when we had lunch afterwards.
No, because he's doing his job
and however pitiful his case was
I'm reluctant to
embarrass attorneys.
With such high rates
and no consequences
for over-litigating, the money
in the marriage is often spent
before the divorce
is even finished.
So how do people
pay for all this?
When the liquid cash went
out, at that point there,
he said, "Well, I understand you
have $100,000 line of credit,"
which I had to go ahead and
use that in order to pay
for my legal defense.
A lot of people go into debt
as a result of their divorces.
Some attorneys automatically
put a lien on your house,
just to make sure that,
eventually, they get paid.
We took out a equity line of
credit on my parents' house
and that's been maxed out now.
I think it's $250,000.
What they do is bleed you
until all the money is gone.
And if that isn't enough, the
court can even order you
to sell everything you own.
A judge looks through
here and he says to me,
"You really messed this up.
The next time I see
you in my court,
I'm going to order your land
sold, so you can get attorneys."
Your home, your valuables
are all going to be sold
to pay the lawyers
and people like me.
The court does regularly
liquidate an asset,
sell the house, to pay that
person to do their job.
So the court system has
become the marketeer
and under threat of a
court order of contempt
have ordered you to comply with
it and then has ordered you
to pay it and will then
collect it for them,
as their collection agency.
The legal system,
like many of the other systems
in our country,
turns around money
and money makes a big
difference on everything.
It's not what we
think of in America,
but it's the reality
of America.
You didn't have family law
firms in the old days,
because the people who ran the
big firms weren't interested
in doing family law.
There was no money in it.
Once houses started
to go up in value
and more money came into
the family law system,
some of those big firms did
get interested in family law.
The cases became much bigger,
so divorce became
a business-type trial.
It's not surprising that
the average contested divorce
in the US costs $50,000.
In the last 40 years,
the number of divorce
lawyers has exploded,
increasing over 2,000%
in California alone
and this is a nationwide issue.
No matter what state you live in
you're going to get pulled in.
We're all part
of this machine
that makes divorce a business.
It is a business and I'm
not ashamed to say that.
This is how I feed my family,
this is how I keep a roof
over my head, this is how
I put gas in my Rolls Royce.
And when children
get involved,
things get even
more complicated.
The real heart
of family court,
the real thing that
is the most painful
and that is the most
damaging is custody fights
and I really think that courts
need to, for the most part,
get out of that business.
I do believe that,
in many cases,
the system does fail children.
The family courts
are supposed
to acknowledge several
Supreme Court decisions
that both parents have an equal
right to see their children.
It's a fundamental
constitutional right
to parenthood
and the Supreme Court
has said it repeatedly.
Go back over 100 years.
Parents have a constitutional
right to raise their children.
We have to defer to their
judgment, unless we find
that their judgment
is detrimental.
But it turns out the family
courts have trumped
the Supreme Court,
with a doctrine called
"The Best Interest
of the Child."
This doctrine is a broad
set of guidelines
that allows the court
to scrutinize nearly every aspect
of parenting.
What does this mean, the
best interest of the child?
And you ask, you say,
"Can I have some criteria?
Is it better to study
a lot or have friends?
Is it better to play
baseball or chess?
Is it better to watch old movies
on TV or watch the new movies?"
If there was
a legislative definition
of what the best interest is,
then of course,
we could follow that.
It ends up meaning pretty
much whatever first,
the trial judge and then a court
of appeal court wants it
to mean.
The judge gets to decide
whether the parent's ethics,
morals, and behavior
fits his or her profile
for the perfect parent
and ultimately,
they have the undisputed
power to choose one parent
over the other or
neither parent at all.
What I would
consider a good parent,
another judge might not
consider a good parent.
They have to decide
who is best for the child,
and who's a better parent.
Suppose you're in the 88th
percentile as a parent
and then the other parent
is in the 93rd percentile,
then you can, as a judge, say,
"I think the child
should spend more time,
because that's better."
Whereas if you have
two parents and one is
in the third percentile
and the other is
in the eighth percentile,
the 8th would get it,
between those two parents.
But look at that.
The one who's in the 88th
now doesn't get his child
and one who's in the
8th does get his child
because of the purely fortuitous
circumstances of the marriage
or the union.
The whole thing is just insane.
As long as you treat
your family well
and there's not anything
going on criminally
and there's not some abuse,
the state doesn't get involved,
but for some reason, when
you file for divorce,
a whole bunch of
strangers are starting
to look up your dress.
Neglect and abuse, sure.
The government has a right to be
there, has a duty to be there.
We're talking about the
situation in family court,
two fit parents who,
outside of this system,
would never be challenged,
in terms of their right
to be with their child.
You need evaluators,
you need psychologists,
you need all these people to
tell you what you did wrong.
I will never understand that.
Because the concept of the
best interest of the child
is so nebulous, the court
system created a position
called a custody evaluator.
These evaluators advise the
judges to help them determine
who should get custody
of the children.
As a parenting evaluator,
you conduct all sorts of tests,
personality tests, and then
make a recommendation
who should get primary
custody of the kids.
Give me a list of
all your friends,
all the people who
know you, and they go
and interview each and
every one of them and
then every time someone
says something good or bad,
they look into that.
Many people are
very defensive
when they're being
evaluated by a stranger
to see if they're
a worthwhile parent.
And who wouldn't be?
The MMPI, Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory,
has test/retest reliability that
50% of the people change
in less than two weeks.
It's the most widely used
test in the country,
but it is not a reliable test.
In showing you a
bunch of inkblots,
"What's this look like?
What do you see in here?"
and then scoring you for
narcissism or defensiveness
or paranoia because you
see bats and butterflies
and birds is not
based on science.
It's unethical.
It is unconscionably unethical.
The custody evaluators,
for the most part,
are a bunch of morons making
money off the backs
of people who don't even quite
understand the system.
Do you know what
the qualifications
of being a custody
evaluator are?
Can I name them?
Probably not.
I can tell you it took my
attending a two day seminar
that one could basically
sleep through.
As a parenting evaluator,
you don't have to be good
at understanding
the human condition
or knowing who would
be a better parent.
What you have to be good at is
writing reports and testifying
and being able to convince
a judge that you know
what you're talking about.
In the old days, you could
get those evaluations
for anywhere from
$2,500 to $5,000,
more typically
$5,000 to $7,500.
Now, I'm seeing
them $35,000, $60,000.
They're very expensive.
You end up getting a bill
for $50,000 to $100,000
for the evaluation that,
until you filed for divorce,
none of this was an issue.
Evaluators are frequently
hired by one parent
or the other,
so the evaluator's purpose is
to achieve the parent's goal,
the goal of the parent
who hired him or her.
Whatever expert you get
to say about how bad mom is
at parenting her child,
the other side can
get another expert to say
mom is a great parent.
And that's where the rub comes,
because the fact
that it has no merit.
It's known within the industry
that certain firms
have certain custody evaluators
in their back pocket
and I can confirm that
that's what happens.
So, it really shows you
so often what matters
is not the relationship between
the children and both parents,
but money.
Deborah Singer had
an experience with one
of those evaluators.
My case was
very, very simple.
I had been taking care of my
daughter since she was born,
alone since she was nine
months old, financially,
providing in every, every way.
In Ms. Singer's case, there
was a particular bank account
that had liquid funds.
Once the court sees the
financial picture, it says,
"Now I know I've got
money to work with."
She said that in court.
On the transcript,
sure. On the record.
Commissioner Gretchen
Taylor said,
"There is going to be
a custody evaluation
and you're either going
to pick Dr. Susie Dupay
or Dr. Joseph Kenan.
No other custody evaluator
was acceptable for the judge,
so they chose Dr. Joseph Kenan.
He pulled up
in an Aston Martin,
he was dressed very, very well.
He didn't even know my name.
He didn't know my
ex-husband's name,
he didn't know anything
about the case,
which was very shocking.
I sat down with him and he put
a microphone in front of me
and said, "Tell me about birth
until you were 10 years old."
So I start talking. He was
sweating, he was anxious.
I felt very uncomfortable.
I could tell that
there was something
that just wasn't
settling right.
My instinct was that there
was something terribly wrong.
When it was over, she
gave Dr. Kenan a check
for his agreed upon
fee, $7,500.
He rushed directly to
her bank to cash the check.
I got a call from the manager
at the bank, who I know,
and said,
"There is a man downstairs
trying to cash a check
for $7,500", and I thought,
"Why would this doctor
not just deposit my
check into his account?"
Within a couple of
days type of thing,
I received a phone
call from him.
He was asserting to me
that for another 25 or 35
he'd be able to give
us what we wanted.
I said, "25?" and he
said, "Yeah, $25,000".
And, of course, then I realized
I'm dealing with a major problem.
Right this moment,
as the wheels turn, you think about,
"Am I going to accuse
the judge's appointed
licensed psychiatrist of
attempting to commit extortion?"
We spin out of control,
it bodes poorly against my client,
and all hell breaks loose.
I didn't know what to do.
I get a call out of
the blue from somebody
who wanted to have
lunch with me.
Coming back from lunch,
we bump into Dr. Kenan
on the street.
My friend looks over and
sees him and I looked at him
and I said, "Do you know him?"
and he said, literally,
"Do I know him?
Hold on a second.
I'll show you his Facebook."
Instead of Joe Kenan, he
calls himself Joe Kegan.
There was one after
another of shocking photos
of sex, porn stars, cocaine.
It took them
ten years for me.
It goes to the degree of
how well I hid things.
One specific photograph,
it was a picture
of Dr. Kenan and his
two other friends.
It was a flier for a
party and it said,
"The Dysfunctional Family,"
and at the bottom of it,
it said, "Bareback anal sex with
strangers following the event."
And I'm thinking, "This is
the guy that's going to tell me
"whether or not
I'm a good mother?"
If I had one photo, one photo
like that on my Facebook,
Dr. Kenan would have taken
my child away from me.
She would have been gone.
Probably any
evaluator, actually.
Do whatever you want
in your private life,
but you do not get to determine
what's best for my child.
When the story hit the press,
Dennis Braun received phone
calls from other parents
that had been evaluated
by Dr. Kenan.
Out of the hundred or
so phone calls that I received,
women were literally
crying on the phone to me
about the injustice they felt
had been perpetrated upon them
by Dr. Kenan and I kind of
found it somewhat disingenuous
that the court would say
that they had not heard
that Dr. Kenan was one of
the questionable evaluators.
Turns out the court system is
well aware of issues like this.
In 2010, California's auditor
was ordered to examine
the family courts.
The audit discovered that
the courts were forcing parents
to pay thousands of
dollars to unlicensed
and unqualified evaluators.
I'm an ex-cop, all right?
I know what it is to
drive a police car,
I know what it is to
sit in the back of one.
I'm not easily hustled and when
I see these custody evaluators,
they sicken me.
There has been no outreach
whatsoever about this
from the court system and
Dr. Kenan is free to continue
to do custody evaluations
if lawyers contact him,
which I fully believe they are.
It seems the courts are
trying to protect themselves
from getting exposed,
no matter what the cost.
(music plays)
Dan Brewington and his
wife had two daughters,
When Dan's wife filed
for divorce, they decided
to split their time
with the children 50/50,
but their divorce dragged
on for over two years.
After going through
two lawyers
and nearly running
out of money,
Dan decided to
represent himself
with a little informal
advice from Bob Kelly.
Close to three years
ago, he would stop in
and ask me general questions
or if I could provide him
with information.
In Dan's case, he had equal
parenting time with his wife.
There was no problem,
no allegations of abuse,
no allegations of harm
to the children
in any way, shape, or form.
This is where
they were born.
They did diapers, bottles,
potty training, everything
and nothing went wrong.
There was no drugs,
no alcohol, anything like that.
And so for two and a half years,
there were no complaints,
no child custody investigations,
no anybody trying
to change the visitation
arrangements.
But Dan went through
a custody evaluation.
The custody evaluation
report was 29 pages.
One of the tests that Dan had taken,
he had nine categories.
In eight categories,
he scored average or above.
And when Dan asked why none of
the good stuff was ever mentioned,
he said that he was only
paid to find the bad stuff.
They accused of him of
being possibly paranoid
and paranoid people
sometimes strike out.
Dan felt that he was being
railroaded by the evaluator,
so he started a blog
site to express
what he felt was an injustice.
Dan soon found examples where
the evaluator may have acted
in biased or inconsistent ways.
For example, Dan's
evaluator recommended
that a mother who had had
sex with a 15 year old boy
and who served alcohol
to minors in her home
be granted more custody than
was recommended for Dan.
Dan Brewington was
the individual who got in,
started digging,
made a determination
that this psychologist
who was being appointed
by judges in Indiana was not
licensed to practice psychology
in Indiana, so once Dan
Brewington got that ball rolling
he was a marked man.
The judge takes
a look at the situation,
what's the first recourse?
He wants to avoid the publicity,
"Take down your blog".
There was
a preliminary hearing,
in which the judged warned
that Dan needed to take down
his blog site if he wanted
to see his little girls.
Just saying that
is threatening.
You know,
I can't make you take it down,
because it's your
First Amendment right,
and, so he's saying you either
can have First Amendment rights
or you have your children,
but unlike most people,
you can't have both.
For that judge to say,
"You won't get to see your children
if you don't take that blog
down," is absolutely
in violation of
the First Amendment.
Dan felt that his
First Amendment right
to the freedom of
speech enabled him
to continue publishing his blog,
so he didn't remove it.
As a consequence,
two and a half months later,
the judge completely rescinded
Dan's right to see his girls.
No visitation whatsoever.
Even convicted felons
are granted visitation
of their children.
I believe that he did that
to be malicious and vindictive,
to take the girls away.
I've had clients who
have either had alcohol,
drug problems, or whatever.
They've all received visitation,
even if it's supervised.
They went out the
front door and I said,
"Goodbye my darlings.
I'll see you tomorrow
and we'll plan
the birthday cake",
and I've never seen them since.
And evaluators are just one
of the many types of experts
that a judge can
assign to your case.
In fact, if evaluators
aren't enough,
the court can even appoint
lawyers to represent children.
(music plays)
This is our
leopard gecko, Star.
I got custody of him. (laughs)
I actually got this sign
right after I got divorced.
I laugh a lot.
The sign in the kitchen
makes me think
of my oldest daughter.
The divorce process in 2004,
we sat down together,
we came up with our own
agreement that was fairly simple
and we wrote our
own custody schedule,
which was a 50/50 custody split.
In November of 2008,
my ex-husband
started violating court orders
and withheld one of our children
from being with me.
Wendy pleaded
with her ex-husband
to maintain the custody
schedule, but he refused,
so she took the matter to
family court to ask for help.
My ex-husband's attorney
asked for a guardian ad litem,
or what's called an amicus
attorney to be appointed
to our case.
Her job was supposed
to be to determine
what's in the best
interest of the children.
Sometimes the courts
will appoint an attorney
to represent the child,
but that is not necessarily
a positive step, either.
She told me in
our first meeting
that she would be giving
custody to my ex-husband.
It was very shocking to me.
I have seen some attorneys who,
because they want
to curry favor with a judge,
so that that judge will
appoint them again,
they tend to provide
a report that leans toward
what they think the
judge wants anyway.
It's not a positive system.
The amicus attorney
sent me a bill for $11,000
and they knew I
didn't have $11,000.
I took my bank
statements to the court
and they knew that I was to
the point where I had nothing left.
Some of these children
can't say, "goo goo, ga ga",
and yet these lawyers are sending
you these outrageous bills
for all these
sessions they had.
We kept getting
the same figure,
where she was billing
the same number of hours
to all these different cases and
she's got dozens and dozens
of cases, couldn't
possibly have performed
this number of hours.
A few of these lawyers
have gotten away
with hundreds of
thousands of dollars
taking kids to movies
and going to have lunch.
Now in the audits of Marin
and Sacramento County,
this was found to be
a highly abusive area,
where the minors' counsel's
bills weren't being looked at
and they would just submit them,
they'd pencil whip them,
and write them a check
and the parents ended up
being responsible for a bill
that they couldn't get in
and audit.
I can't dispute any of
the guardian ad litem fees.
I asked to get a statement
at one point of her fees,
so I could understand
how she was billing
and she told me that
the guardian ad litem bills,
she can give to
the children only,
because she's their attorney.
Now, my children are under
the age of ten years old.
They would not understand
any of the fees,
but she refused to
give them to me,
so whatever she wrote
down is what I had to pay.
It was actually very clever
on the other attorneys' parts.
I got an ultimatum,
a motion for enforcement,
that said, "Pay this
$11,000 or go to jail."
So, it really got to
the end of the line for me.
With her back
against the wall,
Wendy decided to
do some digging.
We had gone in and we had
obtained some public records
from the Ethics Commission.
I came to find out and it is
reflected in public documents
that the amicus attorney in
our case has relationships
with the judge in our case and
she has worked very closely
with my ex-husband's attorneys
in previous cases
and in fact, my ex-husband's
attorneys represented
the amicus attorney in a case.
Wendy kept digging.
We found that the amicus
attorney in our case
was a large campaign contributor
to the judge in our case
and the attorneys
representing my ex-husband
were also large campaign
contributors to the judge
in our case.
It seems kind of
unbelievable to me
that the judge who's hearing
the case or one of the parties,
their attorneys is a very
large campaign contributor.
Sounds like a conflict of
interest, doesn't it? (laughs)
And that wasn't all she found.
If you pull the records from
the Texas Ethics Commission,
you'll find oftentimes
that the attorneys
who make the largest
contributions to the judges
tend to win most
of their cases.
Because of all this,
Wendy requested a new judge,
in an effort to
get a fair trial.
The courts responded by
asking another judge
to rule on whether there
was a conflict of interest,
regarding the campaign
contributions.
The other judge heard the case
and denied Wendy's request,
but made a very
interesting speech
And the judge said,
"This thing about contributions
"is as uncomfortable for a judge
as any topic you can get on.
"That's because you folks that
are non lawyers don't contribute
"to judicial campaigns and
the only way that a judge can run
"for reelection is to raise
money for all those things
"that cost to get your
name before the public
"and you know who has the most
interest in seeing that done?
"The lawyers".
If we read on, he says
the lawyers only contribute
"to good judges."
So what does it mean to be a good
judge in the eyes of a lawyer?
Perhaps it means seeing
things their way.
Some lawyers even boast that
they can control the outcome
of a case.
They have it now where
$300,000 to $400,000
will guarantee the outcome.
Amazingly, these same
judges are also the ones
who approve the bills of
all the court professionals
who work on your case.
If we talk about who
are the most ferocious,
more feared collectors, often
you hear things like the IRS, right?
On that list, near the top of
the list of the most fearsome
would be the courts.
And the reason is they have
a lot of extralegal tools.
There's very few
businesses in America
where you can sit back and
a judge sends you the business
and a judge collects
your money for you
and that money
gets to you for sure.
And the beauty of this is all
they've got to do is get in good
with the judges.
And campaign contributions are
just one of many incentives
that are used to
influence judges.
They have a family
law section of the
Los Angeles County Bar
that's very active,
that puts on programs.
Some judges will sit on
that executive committee
from time to time,
judges will be in all the programs
that they present. You work
together with them on panels
on presentations, so
there's a lot of contact
and communication and you
see these same lawyers
all the time.
The law firms have
created conferences,
all expense paid trips,
and even awards that they give
to the judges.
And these activities are often
sponsored by the same lawyers
who present cases
to these judges.
I love my lawyers and I'm
very, very happy to say
that I was awarded by
both the plaintiff's bar,
when they had their annual
convention with expenses paid
and I was awarded by
the defense bar.
Boy, their trip was to Spain and
we had two judges along there.
I just was very close with the
vast majority of my lawyers
and it was no
conflict whatsoever.
But these are small potatoes,
compared to the largest
incentives for judges.
When a judge goes
into retirement,
they not only get
a generous pension,
but they also have the option
to continue practicing privately
as a judge or as a lawyer.
Law firms often hire the retired
judges to rule on cases
outside the court.
And the law firms pay
is exponentially higher
than what they were paid
by the government.
So guess which judges get
hired most often to work
for these law firms.
And, of course, some of
the judges, it's interesting,
is that a lot of them
are millionaires, too.
I mean, how about
that for a thought?
You guys ever
thought about that?
Many civil judges nowadays
go into arbitrations
and mediations afterwards.
I'm seeing the same
lawyers that I saw
when I was sitting
on the bench.
What we try to do is
go to retired judges,
pay them their hourly rate
and have them hear our cases.
I charge $500 an hour.
There's some people
who charge $400,
some people who charge $600.
My fee is $500.
And unlike other
public officials,
judges do not have a waiting
period between public
and private practice.
A judge can retire one day,
practice as an attorney
the next day,
and then go back to being
a pro tem judge a day later.
Amazingly, your opposing
attorney could literally
have been serving as
a judge the day before,
having had lunch with the
same judge you're sitting
in front of today.
With all this happening
behind the scenes,
it begs the question: Is anyone
actually getting a fair trial
in family court?
I haven't seen my boys,
except through Skype,
for over four years now.
I found out that my judge used
to work in the same law firm
as my ex's attorney.
They were friends and associates
and my ex's attorney
had been giving campaign
contributions to my judge.
The judge didn't let
me speak in court,
wouldn't let me tell my story.
He was hostile in court,
so I went to the press.
I-Team reporter
Ernie Freeman reports
on how a mother's
desperate cries for help
are not being heard.
Shortly thereafter, both boys
were taken away from me.
No contact with them whatsoever.
My judge was retaliating
against me for me being vocal.
It's not like I abused my kids.
There was nothing like that
that would substantiate
such a harsh ruling as
to completely cut me
out of my kids' lives.
I kept filing new papers
to try and get some kind
of contact with my boys.
Eventually the judge
put a court order on me
that said that I was not
allowed to file anything,
not only in his court, but
in the entire court system.
At that point, I felt
desperate and hopeless.
I want to see my boys.
Time was going by and
I still didn't have
any contact with them.
So, that's when I
decided to file a paper.
That filing landed me in jail.
They didn't give me a lawyer,
no jury, just the one biased judge.
I've gone to jail
now three times,
not because I committed a crime
not because I stole anything,
but because I want
to see my children.
I think it's quite fair to
question the amount of money
that's changing hands in
the family court system
and how that affects
the decisions that officials
in the system make.
As I always tell my grandchildren,
follow the money
and you'll figure out why people
are hurt and who is helped.
Who exactly is
watching the courts?
Custody mediator Emily Gallup
tried to answer that question.
I went to Stanford
right out of high school
and my first class was Psych 1
and I knew immediately
I wanted to know absolutely
everything I could
about psychology.
The mediator can make a
recommendation to the judge
to what the custody
plan should be.
It's easy to
just rubber stamp
whatever the mediator
tells you to do.
And for the most part,
that is exactly what happens.
Something like 90 or 95% of
the cases get the rubber stamp,
but there was this
one hour guideline.
Within one hour, I was
supposed to review the file,
meet with parents, write a
recommendation to the court.
They call it the ER model.
They say,
"Well, you know,
people come in, they get service
for their most immediate problem,
they're sent on their way,
and if they need to come back,
they can come back later".
The only way you can do that
is if you cut some very
important corners
and you play quick and dirty.
I called the AOC, thinking
that the AOC was the police
for all the courts
in California,
that they monitor compliance.
So I called them
from this cramped,
little victim witness waiting
room across the hall.
I literally was in the dark
with the door locked,
calling them for help, saying,
"I have tried everything
I can think of here
"and domestic violence
victims are being forced
"into mediation with
their perpetrators,
"files are not
being reviewed."
You know, I went through my list
of all my concerns and they said,
"Wow, that sounds terrible,
but there's nothing we can do.
"I'm sorry.
We don't like to get
involved in these
interdepartmental disputes".
Okay, so who is
watching the court?
I've come to the unfortunate
conclusion that no one
is holding them accountable
for their actions.
They've done a lot of
damage to this community.
Andm at the time, I thought,
"Well, yeah.
"Half the people who've been
through here don't like us,
"because they didn't
get what they wanted."
And I realize now that's
not the problem.
The problem is you were
disrespecting people
and they knew it.
(music plays)
While the ER model
has not been effective
at lowering court dockets,
it has been very effective
at creating a revolving door
that brings litigants back
over and over and over again.
The great structure
is take the litigants,
who are in trouble and
desperate enough to pay money
and get them to pay
money to the lawyers,
who are the friends of
the judges and the judges
are ex-lawyers, so it's all
this interlocking situation.
You get money
based on numbers
and if there's more
people and more
and more people coming in,
then you can ask
for more funding.
If you, kind of,
handle the situation,
there's less people
that have to come back.
It's a great
repeat business.
Yes. The revolving
door of services.
The courts are
state-sponsored.
The more divorce
disputes they have,
the more funding they
get from the state.
Professionals who benefit
from the system
continually lobby for
more and more money.
We can only hope
that the priorities
of the legislative and
executive branches will be
to pour money into our courts.
More funding for more
judges and commissioners
for the courts.
Funding should be
substantially increased
over the good years
that we have.
But, hopefully we will
get the money we need.
And they often get their way.
The Judicial Council is
the policy-making body
of California state courts.
Chief Financial Officer
Steven Nash outlined
what funding
the branch can expect.
This budget is such a
relief, not that it's great,
but it is such a relief.
The more funding the
courts get from the state,
the larger they get and the more
business they can handle
from the law firms.
(music plays)
Ulf Carlson has
experienced first-hand
just how much damage
the collusion
between lawyers and
judges can cause.
At the beginning
of the divorce,
I had talked to some
of the biggest law firms
here in Sacramento and
their first question was
who is the judge and who
is the opposing attorney.
And I was told by numerous firms
that they had a very serious
concern about that relationship.
The attorney
representing Ulf's wife
had a close relationship
with the judge
and now even serves as
both an attorney and a judge
in the same courthouse.
Not surprisingly, Ulf's judge
seemed biased against him
during his trial.
Right during cross
examination,
the judge just got up and
left and he never returned
to the courtroom.
My attorney, I think it
was a couple days later,
she gets called in by
his clerk and basically,
is informed that
the trial's over with.
And the interesting thing is
he actually ruled against me
on every single issue,
not 99%, but 100%.
I mean,
he nailed me on everything.
He ordered both properties
sold, that I were
to pay my ex's all of
her attorney fees.
So, I was left with no other
choice than to file an appeal.
Filing an appeal
is what someone does
if they're trying to
reverse a judge's decision.
Unfortunately, the appeals
court can only change a decision
or order a retrial if the
family court judge didn't apply
the family code correctly.
Aside from that, appeals
courts don't have the power
to change a judge's ruling,
even if the judge's decisions
were biased, one-sided,
or cruel.
Two days after I
had filed my appeal,
McBrian found out about
it and has admitted
that he picked up
the phone and called his buddy,
who just happened to
be Chief of Legal
at the Department of
General Services,
where I worked for 18 years and
I had an impeccable work history
and I was just escorted out
of the building and fired.
It became clear to Ulf that
the judge was retaliating
against him for
filing an appeal,
so Ulf submitted a complaint
to the Judicial Council.
This is where people
can report unethical
or incompetent judges,
but the judicial council
is made up of
judges and lawyers
and they rarely remove
a judge from office.
In fact, that year, there
were over 1,000 complaints
filed against judges in
the state of California alone.
Of those 1,000 complaints,
none of the judges were fined,
one of the judges
were put in jail,
and none of the judges
were removed from office.
Even thought
the judicial council found
that Ulf's judge engaged
in willful misconduct
and contacted Ulf's employer
they didn't fire him.
And even the appeals court and
the judicial council acknowledged
that the judge was in
the wrong, Ulf's divorce
still caused him to
go completely broke.
This mistake has
cost me hundreds of
thousands of dollars.
I've not been reimbursed
any of that money.
It's not fun, at the age
of 51, to start over.
All my other friends are talking about,
you know, getting ready
for retirement at 55 or so and
here I have to begin again, so...
Unfortunately, Ulf had no
choice but to move back in
with his parents, who
live in Scandinavia.
It's another part of the world,
where divorce is done
much differently.
(music plays)
Scandinavia is home
to Ikea, the Nobel Prize,
and the world's largest
shipping company.
Like the US, Scandinavian
countries are advanced,
democratic, and free.
Its citizens are amongst
the wealthiest and happiest.
Their children score as well
or better than US children
on standardized tests and
their unemployment rates
are relatively low.
Interestingly, Scandinavia
has a similar divorce rate
to the United States,
but they do not use family courts
or lawyers to get divorced.
I went to see a priest,
I went to see a psychiatrist,
I talked to my husband with
a psychiatrist, with a priest,
I talked to friends, I never,
ever thought that I need
to see an attorney.
I've never heard of anyone
went for a legal debate
about the divorce,
never heard of it.
You just get a paper in
your mailbox and you fill it in
and you send it back and
then you have six months
to think about it, you have
time to change your mind
in six months and
then it's done.
How much did
your divorce cost?
Nothing.
Not a single krona.
Maybe five kronur for
the stamp on the envelope.
(laughing)
So, why is divorce so much
easier in Scandinavia
than in the US?
It's because Scandinavians
view husbands and wives
as complete equals.
The rules in Iceland
are based on the equality
of men and women, but the one
who has lower income,
you know, he has the same
possibilities as others
and he needs to get used to,
you know, changes in his life.
Women in Iceland are
very much economically
very independent.
They don't look at the
marriage or the divorce
as a way to get support.
Of course, the assets
are divided into two parts.
So, the couple has equal
rights to the assets,
but when we are talking
about the future
and the future income,
they go their separate ways.
By contrast,
family courts in the US
do not treat marriage
partners equally.
While the US has attempted
to make its laws gender neutral,
family courts still
promote the 1950s view
that marriage is
a lifetime partnership
between a provider spouse
and a dependent spouse
and that a dependent spouse will
need monthly support payments
to survive after the marriage.
All of that was
based on a model
of a woman stays home and
takes care of the children
and the man is the primary
and sole breadwinner.
But over the past 60 years,
more women have attained
financial independence
and there are more women
working than men today.
In 80% of American marriages,
both spouses are employed
and the income gap has
become much smaller.
It is going to be
less and less relevant,
as time goes on, because women
are less and less likely
to be solely housewives.
You would think that
the amount of dependent support
being ordered by the courts
each year would be diminishing,
but the size of these support
payments has gone up 30%
in the past 20 years,
swelling to well over 44
billion dollars per year.
All this is happening, despite
a 20% drop in the divorce rate.
So, what's going on here?
For some reason,
the family courts have strayed
from the original intent
of the support laws.
They have invented a new math.
The printed tables that
originally helped courts
and family law attorneys deal
with support guidelines
were very limited.
So, in 1985, family law
attorney Steven Adams
and I made it actually
compute on IBM PCs.
It would take me weeks
or months to do this
if I tried it with
a pencil and paper.
So, here's an example of
what makes it so complex.
You have to take certain
guideline deductions,
like health insurance,
required union dues.
The bonus reports and
overtime reports, legal fees,
and charitable
contribution, reassigning
the dependent exemption,
the hardship deduction, mortgages
(crosstalk)
Total support is $4,836.
I've just taken
a simple example.
That's the end of my script.
Let's take a look
behind the curtain.
There are two types
of support payments.
The first kind is alimony.
Alimony is supposed
to balance the income
between spouses after marriage,
even if there were no children,
but many states have laws
that make alimony last longer
than the marriage,
sometimes even for life.
Massachusetts was
one of those states.
Steve Hitner was a victim
of a particularly onerous
alimony arrangement and started
the group Mass Alimony Reform
to try to change things.
We have people who are
married for short term marriages
of four or five years, who are
paying 25 years worth of alimony.
And then women came to me
who actually pay alimony to men
who didn't want to work.
So now you have a situation
where you divorce someone
because they refuse to work
or weren't very responsible
with your finances and you
end up having to take care
of them for the rest of
their lives at the lifestyle
of the marriage.
Would you have married me
if you knew this was going
to happen?
No. I wouldn't
have married him.
I mean, I really love him,
but the judge told me I have
to work two jobs in order
to keep him out of jail.
Your responsibility,
based on the law,
is to maintain your
ex-spouse to the lifestyle
of the marriage.
So, you're essentially
working two jobs
and your spouse is
working two jobs
to support someone who is
going to Italy twice a year.
More divorced women
are paying alimony
to their ex-husbands.
He basically came to
me in a session and said,
"I'm asking for money
and you need to keep me
"in the life that
I'm accustomed to."
So when he said
the life he's accustomed to,
what did he mean?
He went to trips in Europe,
paid for his veneers,
paid for personal
trainers, et cetera,
and he wanted to be kept
in that lifestyle still.
The modern day family
courts not only focus
on what's needed for survival,
but also what's needed
for pleasure and excess.
Steve was ultimately
successful at lobbying the state
of Massachusetts to change
their alimony laws,
but the changes do
not occur automatically.
If you want to change
your actual ruling,
you still have to go
back to family court
to get your alimony
arrangement renegotiated.
And that means having to open
up your divorce case again,
creating even more business
for the family court system.
In Scandinavia, things are
handled much differently.
The question of
alimony is only
to fulfill this legal obligation
of supporting the spouse
until the marriage
has come to an end.
And it's only for the period until
the divorce is fully through
for this period of six
months or twelve months.
By limiting alimony until
the divorce is finished
and to no more than
$1,000 per month,
the Scandinavian laws have
removed any incentive
for pursuing a lengthy
battle in court.
And if a Scandinavian couple
wishes to adopt a traditional,
provider/dependent relationship,
they can always agree
prior to the marriage,
to extend support payments
for a longer time.
(music plays)
Another type of dependent
support is child support.
But calculating child support
is even more confrontational,
because it's based not only
on the difference in income,
but also on who gets
the most time with the kids.
Are you going to have
your kids 86% of the time,
like in a sole custody
situation, or only
50% of the time,
as in a shared
custody situation.
There's a lot of money at stake
for both the higher earner
and the lesser earner.
Now, at this point, we have 0%
with dad and 100% with mom.
So now, watch what happens
overall as I increase time share.
It turns out the more time
you spend with your children,
the more child support you get.
The family court system
has actually created
a financial incentive for
people to fight court battles
over their own children.
It probably
quadrupled the amount
of contested custody
matters that we have.
The kids are the pawns.
I use the term
"little bags of money"
when there is a contested
case over physical custody
of the children.
People go and do battle
because they have these
remarkable incentives.
Interestingly,
child support is not based
on what you spend or
need for your children,
but on how much you make.
About a third of your gross
income, up to $250,000,
that's got to go over
here for child support.
But that's calculated before
taxes, so it actually ends up
being more like 50% to 60%
of your take home pay.
I absolutely have
payor spouses,
whether they be
the husband or the wife,
come in all the time and say,
"This is completely unfair.
"I'm dividing everything I
have and giving half of it
to my spouse and I'm still going
to keep working just as hard
"as I've been working
to continue to support my spouse
"and my children.
"How am I supposed to go
on and have a new life?"
And the recipient parent
doesn't have to spend the money
on the children.
They can spend it on
whatever they want.
In fact, they can spend child
support money on legal fees
to see the payor parent
for even more child support.
You don't get to get receipts
for what the child
support was spent for.
The parent gets
the money, not the child
and the parent decides
how much the kid gets.
All else being equal,
if you had your choice
between receiving $1,000
of child support or $1,000
of spousal support, then you'd
prefer to get the child support,
because you're not
going to pay taxes on it.
You know, that child
support can quickly become
more like alimony, it
can become Monopoly money,
play money, mad money.
Mr. Kolodony, let
me start with you.
$320,000 a month
in child support,
they need $144,000 for travel,
$14,000 for parties
and playdates,
$436 a month for
care of Kira's bunny.
This seems to be
as much or more
about Lisa Corrigan's
lifestyle than Kira's.
Family courts justify
granting child support
at levels higher than what is
needed for basic necessities
and education by
claiming that children
in America are entitled.
Child is entitled
to the lifestyle
of the non-custodial parent.
Now, is there research that
supports that it would be bad
for a child to go from
a high standard of living
to a lower standard of living?
There might be.
I'm not aware of it,
but it just makes sense.
There's absolutely no
research that indicates
that a child who spends
part of the time
in a more affluent environment
and part of the time
in a less affluent environment
is going to end up any different
than one who spends
time in equally...
It doesn't make any sense.
Most of the time, it's
not an issue of money.
I don't think the
business of equalizing
the standard of living
is a requirement for children
to be happy after divorce.
And child support, since it's
based on the amount of custody,
can be re-litigated
at any time.
Custody will
always be something
that could be modified, so you
could resolve the entire case
and then two years later,
somebody could come back
and say, "Custodial
schedule is not working.
"There needs to be a change."
And the child support
formula is so complicated
that it could even be used
to make a low-income parent
pay money to a wealthy parent.
This happened in Wendy's case.
When she went to court
to get help with visitation,
the judge ordered her
to start paying child support
to her ex-husband, even though
her ex-husband's income
was much higher.
My ex-husband was living
in a $1 million house.
He had several very expensive
cars and his income
was about $400,000 a year.
I produced my pay stubs,
my bank statements,
my tax returns.
I begged the court to not
order me to pay child support,
because of my
financial situation.
My monthly expenses alone,
out of my income
of $2,400 per month,
were $3,000 a month,
so I was already
negative $600 a month.
I was ordered to pay my
ex-husband $775 per month.
These people end up racking
up a big child support debt.
A lot of states have
interest on the debt,
sometimes that interest
is high as 10% or 12%
and the person ends up
saddled with a debt
that they can no longer pay.
I ended up losing all of my
cash, lost all of my credit,
and when I had nothing left,
then my mom spent her
retirement money to help me.
Wendy didn't see her
daughter for two years
and ultimately, ended up
losing custody altogether.
I felt very victimized
by the family court
and I think that my children
were the biggest victims
of the family court.
It's very frustrating and it's
very depressing to have gone
for help and then to come out
with your family destroyed.
People are being put in jail
for not having the ability
to pay their child support.
Debtor's prisons were
abolished in this country
about 150 years ago,
but we do have debtor's prisons
in the United States right now.
We have people who are in jail,
not because they didn't want
to pay their child support,
but because they cannot
pay their child support.
This doesn't happen
in Scandinavia.
Custody time and money
are two different things
that we never mix together.
The laws are much
more simple here
and therefore there is less
things going to court,
less fighting over
custody of the children
and also less fighting
over each other's money.
Support of one child,
how much does it cost?
How much does the child
need or the parent need
for the child?
The amount today is
a little less than $150
or something like that.
By limiting child support
to a fixed monthly amount
for basic necessities,
an amount that doesn't change,
no matter who spends more or
less time with the children,
Scandinavians have eliminated
any incentive to use children
as financial pawns.
Most of the time,
it's like half and half.
You have them one week and
you have them the other.
I have had many, many cases,
but very few of them
are custody cases.
Very few.
How many?
Well, I would say two a year,
but I've been a judge
over 30 years, so...
Of all the cases where you
need to decide on custody,
just about two percent
of them go to court.
Which is a very, very
small percentage.
You don't get rich taking
care of your own child.
In Sweden, it doesn't
work that way.
Is that the way it is
in America? I'm not sure.
In America, even if
you are not married,
just having children subjects
you to the family courts.
If you and your partner
can't resolve a custody issue,
it might mean paying
for custody evaluators,
experts, and lawyers,
just like someone who goes
through a divorce.
The dependent/provider
spouse relationship
also extends to legal fees.
The provider is often forced
to pay the dependent's lawyer.
This actually incentivizes
the dependent spouse
to prolong legal battles.
In fact, it's not uncommon
for the legal fees
to be higher than the marital
money being fought over.
$320,000. Michael
Newdow was livid, furious
that he had to write
a huge check to pay
for the other side's legal
fees in his child custody case,
all because he wanted 50/50
custody of his daughter.
I think these are
outrageous fees.
If we wouldn't pay these,
these people wouldn't make
this ridiculous money.
And he's only been
granted 30% custody.
I mean, this is nonsense.
Then, on top of this, I say,
"This can't be constitutional."
The judge says, "Even if
you win, you have to pay."
But, in Scandinavia, in the two
percent of custody battles
that actually go to court,
each side pays their own legal fees.
Usually in these kind of
cases, either party answer
by paying the legal
fees of his lawyer.
So, people in Scandinavia
think twice
before taking someone to court,
especially since they can't
win much, but in America,
all the financial incentives
actually motivate people to lie.
One of the biggest
problems in family court
is there are so many
false accusations
and so few consequences
for those accusations.
False accusations are
used to gain custody,
to gain control of property,
gain control of the house,
to gain control of
the financial assets,
to gain more alimony,
more child support.
This stuff goes on all the time,
yet there's very little
in the way of punishment
for false accusations
or accountability.
How could you be
married for 20 years,
you were a great husband,
she was a great wife.
Now, we're going through
a divorce, he's a pervert,
he's a drug dealer, he's doing
all these horrible things,
she's an alcoholic,
she's a drug dealer,
and she's sleeping
with everybody.
Did this just happen in
the last week or two?
I got a lot of those that
happened right at the top
of divorce action, when both
people were in the house
and one person wanted
to get the other person
out of the house.
It may be that, in fact,
there is no violence,
but they make it up because
they talked with their friends,
or they've gone to a lawyer
who said, "Make it up
"and if you really
do a good job,
"then you can get
him kicked out.
"Now you're in the house,
you have a big leg up
in keeping the kids and
maybe keeping possession
of the house."
I've counseled women
and a few men at how
to get the other side
thrown out of the house.
How hard is that to do?
If you follow
my instructions, easy.
Domestic violence, first of all,
is defined so broadly,
there's so many things that
can count as domestic violence,
that it's not hard, it's not hard
to be accused of domestic violence.
It's really a travesty,
the way a system, the system
that was designed to protect
women from domestic abuse,
to protect children from
abuse, to protect children
from sexual abuse,
a system that was set up
with every good intention,
that was set up to protect
those who needed it,
has been allowed to be subverted
so that false accusers, really,
are able to gain so much
by making the false accusation.
Physical violence and
sexual assault are crimes
and our justice
system is set up
to handle criminal
accusations like this,
but family courts also listen to
and act upon such accusations
and because false
accusations are so common
during a divorce, these cases
are typically not turned over
to criminal court.
Family court judges
have to distinguish
between true abuse victims
and those crying wolf
for financial gain.
Unfortunately, when
you call the police
and you tell them about
bruising or whatever,
their first reaction is not
"Are there any weapons in the house?"
or "Do you have
medical records?"
or "Can I see the bruises?"
Their first reaction is
"Are you involved in a custody case?"
When you use
the system as a leg up,
you're damaging all
the women out there
who are truly getting abused,
because it taints
the whole system.
You look at it with a tainted
eye when people are crying wolf
and there is none there
and judges get it wrong.
It happens.
We're beginning tonight
with new details
about a local mother's
efforts to keep her kids away
from her husband, because she
believed he was dangerous.
A judge denied her request.
Six weeks later, her husband
shot and killed them all.
When she filed for
divorce on May 29,
she asked the court for sole
custody of their two children,
Bailey and Jackson.
Asked to explain
the immediate danger,
she wrote, "My husband
threatened to steal them
"and not return them.
"He has threatened
to hurt them.
"He yells at them and makes
them feel nervous and upset."
On the same page, you can
see the judge's response.
"Denied. Danger
not established."
Tragedies like this, perhaps,
would be handled differently
if judges did not hear so many
fictitious cries for protection
and because of these tragedies,
some judges elect
to issue restraining orders
whenever an allegation
of abuse is made,
no matter how credible.
You hate to be wrong on
a domestic violence charge.
You err on the side of caution.
But, this can also have
horrible consequences,
as Mark Byron found out.
My competence as a father
has never been questioned
by my first wife.
I have a nine year old son.
His name's Zach and we have
a shared parenting agreement.
We split the time
with him 50/50, so...
and she's never made any
allegations of abuse
or negligence or
anything of that sort.
Eventually, Mark remarried
and had another son
with his new wife.
One thing led to another and
we had a horrible argument
and she ends up calling
the police on me.
You know, the police, they made
a call right there on the spot.
They said, "Look, we're not
going to arrest your husband.
"Normally, we arrest somebody,
"but you don't have
a mark on you.
"Everything seems fine here."
Even though the police
didn't arrest anyone,
Mark's wife got a restraining
order from family court
and also filed
a criminal complaint.
Mark was kicked out of
his home and not allowed
to see his newborn son.
You're talking about
a parent being thrown out
of his or her home,
cut off from his or her children,
losing God knows how much
in financial assets, right,
and it's like, it's slightly
more likely that one side's
"telling the truth
than the other."
Boom, restraining order. Done.
A lot of times, it's
the attorneys driving this.
The attorney wants to win
and the attorney knows
that if their client
can claim to be abused
or make an accusation of abuse,
that puts their client
in the driver's seat and
they're much more likely to win.
It took a long time to
get through the court system.
Everything just takes forever,
but finally I had my day
in court, in criminal court.
I was found not guilty and
it was such a relief.
This was like the weight
of the world was
lifted off my shoulders,
but that was a different judge
than the one that was deciding
on the custody and
visitation in family court.
Even though the magistrate
overseeing my divorce
was fully aware of
the fact that I was acquitted
of domestic violence,
he still made a decision
to take my son away from me.
It's been really hard
not getting to see him
and miss every, you know,
His birthday was last week
and I didn't get to see him.
I felt like it was time for me
to tell my side of the story,
because I've been
quiet for so long.
People are probably wondering
why I don't get to see my son.
Mark decided to express
himself privately
to his friends on Facebook,
believing that his
First Amendment right
of free speech
would protect him.
And I simply said, "If you're
an evil, vindictive woman
"and you want to ruin
your husband's life
"and take your son's father
away from him completely,
"all you have to do is
say that you're scared
"and they'll take him away".
And I really just meant that
in general, because I've come
to realize someone
can just simply say,
whether it's true or not,
just making a claim about somebody
is enough to destroy a family,
tear everyone apart.
Within a few days,
I got a letter in the mail
from the court system.
I'd had a contempt of court
charge filed against me
and I explained to
the magistrate that
this is my private
Facebook wall.
One of Mark's friends
gave his ex-wife access
to the Facebook post.
Mark was found in
contempt of court,
even though he hadn't made
his comments public.
He sentenced me
to 60 days in jail,
or to publish a prewritten
apology on Facebook
and it read something
to the effect that,
you know, I apologize
to my wife, Elizabeth Byron,
for shedding her
in an unfavorable light
and it also went on
to make me apologize for
making claims that the courts
were keeping me
from seeing my child.
I didn't make it to the full
30 days of apologizing.
You know what?
Enough is enough. I'm not
going to do this anymore.
And when I went before
the judge, Jon Sieve,
I was fully prepared
to tell him that,
"No. I'm not going
to apologize anymore."
Mr Byron, in the
course of history,
there have been many champions
of the First Amendment.
You, sir, are not one of them.
The finding of contempt
will be purged
as substantial compliance
is hereby recognized.
I would have liked
to see him incarcerated
for at least a weekend.
Now, what I think people need
to know that it doesn't take much
for a family to get split up.
Just some simple allegations
that can be really frivolous.
Many people reached out to me
with like heartfelt condolences
about, you know, similar
experiences that they had,
where the court system
had gotten in the middle
of their family
and torn it apart.
It definitely opened my eyes
and it made me feel humbled
to have a chance to at
least let my story get out.
Maybe in some way,
it could make a difference.
(music plays)
In Dearborn County, Indiana,
Dan Brewington encountered
similar hardships.
After a year of being
separated from his daughters,
Dan decided to criticize
the judge on his blog.
Dan said that
the judge had punished
the three and five
year old girls,
because their dad had
questioned the ethics
of the courts and the illegal
actions of their expert,
Dr. Edward J. Connor
and because the judge
had denied his
daughters visitation,
Dan believed
the judge was mentally
and emotionally abusive
towards his daughters.
The kids have been
deprived of their father.
In terms of the psychological
harm on the children,
these children want
to see their father.
So, Dan went on to write,
"One of the biggest child abusers
"is wearing a black robe
and holding the gavel."
He appealed to friends
and family to send
letters of support
to the Indiana Ethics and
Professionalism Committee.
This one is really
almost laughable,
because they put
the judge's wife
on the professionalism
committee, who is supposed
to supervise
the judges in Indiana.
Thenm once she receives
a complaint, instead of
acting on the complaint,
she has the
individual indicted.
Dan was arrested
and put in jail
and bail was set at $600,000,
an amount he couldn't
possibly afford.
He was forced to stand
trial in criminal court
and Bob Kelly was not
allowed to represent Dan,
because he wasn't
licensed in Indiana.
And, unfortunately, no other
reputable attorney was willing
to take a case
against the judge.
And so, the prosecutor, who'd
worked alongside the judge for years,
convinced a jury to convict
Dan for intimidation of a judge,
a judge's wife,
and a custody evaluator,
all because of what
he wrote on the internet.
And so, Dan was sentenced
to five years in prison.
All judges have
the same middle name: God.
We asked if we could
interview Dan in prison,
but we were repeatedly
turned down by the warden,
the judicial council,
and the governor.
Okay, right now, no cameras.
Shut off the cameras, guys.
The statistics out there for
fatherless homes are atrocious,
I mean, like 200% more
likely to commit suicide.
It's crazy.
Among other things,
go to jail, teen pregnancy,
lower grades, depression,
drug and alcohol abuse.
All of them are like 100
plus percent more probable.
Are you trying, when you take
these cases and present them
to the judge, are you trying
to spin a narrative?
Always.
What's truer than the truth?
The answer?
The story, because in
the story, we distill data
and give it meaning.
And what's the story that
we family law attorneys
and mediators hear every day?
It's the story of
a victim, the victimizer
and it's very important in
stories to have a rescuer.
There's always got to
be that third person
and who is going to
be that rescuer?
Well, it might be the lawyer,
it might be the judge.
You have to create a theme
and try and keep it going
through the case, so that it
sticks in the judge's mind
when they're making
a final decision.
I can tell you when
I represent women,
I can make a man look like a
piece of shit in two seconds.
Get up there, "What's the name
of your daughter's teacher?"
"What grade is she in?"
"What's the doctor's name?"
They know none of those.
Are they good dads? Excellent.
I can make them look like they
don't care about their kid
in three seconds, because
that is not a man's strength.
There have been a number
of studies that show
that it is a public health
hazard, not just general stress,
but the number of deaths by
suicide, one-car accident,
murder, that come out
of the raw turmoil
of a family law dispute.
I've seen men
walk out crying,
I've seen women walk out
crying and what do you do?
What do you do?
I mean, it's, it's, it's...
You can't sit there and not feel
bad for some of these people.
How much can the body take?
I'm getting screwed
here and I'm supposed
to sit here and take it?
Sir, I'm going to ask
you not to make any comments
in the middle of my decision.
Family court results
in more violence
than any other area of law.
I haven't done
anything to this court,
I haven't done
anything to them.
She will be arrested
for contempt of court.
They're all witnessing
their entire life crashing
upon the rocks.
The court is so ominous.
It's like armageddon.
People who feel
backed in a corner
and are backed into a corner,
sometimes strike out.
(gunshots)
All the shootings
you hear about,
it's always a divorce.
Anyone who goes to court
and has been through it,
knows it's far, far more
severe and damaging
and expensive than they ever
dreamed before they started.
Divorce isn't easy at all.
I think death would be
easier than a divorce.
The judges and
the attorneys work together
and the litigants are
just grist for the mill
and the people that they
are affecting have to deal
with the brutality
of their decisions.
From what I experienced,
they are neither wise enough
or intelligent enough
to be making decisions
affecting other people.
Get over here.
Bend over that bed.
Dad.
Bend over that bed.
Bend over the bed.
(hitting sound)
Bend over the bed.
(hitting sound)
Stop! Stop!
Bend over
the fucking bed, dammit!
(crying and yelling)
Lay down, I'll
smack your fucking face.
You want to put some
more computer games on?
(crying)
You want some more?
(crying)
Fucking computer.
I told you I didn't want
one in the goddamn house.
(music plays)
By granting so much power
to a single human being
without imposing the checks
and balances specified
in our Constitution, we have
turned the family courts
into incubators of corruption,
abuse, extortion,
and for some, even tragedy.
At a time when we feel
intensely sad, lonely, or rejected,
the family courts insinuate
themselves into our lives
and profit from the very
conflict and confusion
that their laws create.
And they chastise and punish
us if we dare to complain.
Do you think
the system's broken?
Oh, do I think
the system's broken?
Why don't you just go
down to the courthouse
and sit there for
a couple hours?
The US family courts
may have been set up
with the best intentions,
but the outcome is a disaster.
What Americans spend
on divorce each year
could fund a healthy lunch
every day for every child
from grade school through
high school in both North
and South America and
all of Africa or provide tuition
for five million college
students or be used
to develop 50 new
medicines each year.
US lawyers and judges who
profit from divorce court
will defend it.
Family law is a great example
of what government
can do for people.
We have the best
system in the world,
in terms of divorces.
Methods intended
to lower the cost,
like mediation outside
the courtroom have been tried,
but they never caught on,
because the financial incentive
to fight is just too powerful.
They are going
to spend all their money
and their emotional resources
and end up far worse.
They tell the litigants that
you're spending the money
that you would use for your
children's college education
for the college education
of your lawyer's children.
While Scandinavians
are by no means perfect,
the benefits of their system
go beyond saving parents
the time and money
of a court battle.
The less complicated it is,
the better it is for the kid.
No one is going to tell me
that fighting for money
that's going to make
the kid more happy.
All four of us, me and
the man that I live with now,
my ex-husband, and his
ex-wife are all raising
these children up together.
It may be difficult for
the first few years after a divorce,
but gradually things
heal and people move
on in other directions
and then in a few
years everybody meets
at a birthday party
for the kids and
things work out.
Litigation is very poorly
suited for family matters.
It pits loved ones against each
other and the kids get caught
in the crossfire.
I don't know when
you'll read this,
but I love you so much, mommy.
I just hope you know what an
impact you've made on my life.
I have no idea what I
would ever do without you.
Custody is for prisoners,
but not children.
So far, we've missed
Christmas '09 and Christmas '10.
And obviously, that takes
a big chunk out of your
family, your celebrations...
and we go on, because
that's what you have to do.
Our daughter Mackenzie had
always been daddy's girl
and then, you know, it just changed
and then she just started turning
against me and then,
sure enough, I found out,
as my ex wrote a letter to
my attorney and just said,
"I'm just to inform you
that Mackenzie got married
"at the age of 17".
And then, I found out on
Facebook a few months ago,
as my relatives looked
into it, now she's a mom.
And I'm a grandpa.
I have a hard time.
I have to explain this
to my nine year old son,
like how does he, how can
I make him understand
why he can't see his brother?
How do you explain
that to a nine year old?
These kids,
they just get tortured.
Something must be done to
change the laws in the US.
There are things
that you can do
and you need to fight back and
you need to take any anger
and hurt and, you know, anxiety
you have and put it into action
and show up for things like
what we have here today,
because only if the people
stand up to tyranny
will things ever change.
What we have is
judicial tyranny.
Every day,
what I'm thinking is,
"What steps do I have to
take to ensure that I reunify
"with my children?"
I am willing to fight
this 'til the very end.
I felt that I owed it
to my kids to keep trying
to do the right thing.
Today, it may
be Dan Brewington.
Tomorrow, it could
be you, it could be me,
or it could be
anybody out there.
I think someday
in the future,
when shared parenting
is the norm,
when the family court
systems have been reformed,
I think we're going to
look back on this era
the way we look back
on the dark ages,
as a very barbaric era
where people are just going
to scratch their heads
and they're just going
to not believe that this
is the way we handled this.
Maybe we should get
rid of family courts.
(music plays)