Dear President Obama,
I wanted to inform you that under our present laws if Michelle files a restraining order against you and accuses you of domestic violence, which could simply be you throwing your Obamacare files across the room after a long day at the oval office, that you stand to lose a lot of freedoms you purport to protect. First you will be forced to leave the White House. The Secret Service will probably be there to allow you to collect some of your things but not everything that is legally yours. Your beautiful girls will only be allowed to be around you during supervised visits, this will most likely be twice a week at the local YMCA or kids museum. Be sure to save up some money because your visits will cost about $50 an hour. You also will be forced to pay child support without anyone asking if you even threw that damn Obamacare file. You will need to hire a good lawyer to fight the charges against you as well. Most lawyers ask for a $5000 retainer to start, then they will take monthly payments. You also need to turn in your passport. I know this may be tricky as you do so much work overseas but the law is the law Barack. Also, no more shooting clay pigeons at Camp David, you’ll be required to turn in your firearms once you are served with your restraining order.

Be prepared my friend, because on top of your mounting legal bills, supervised visit fees and trying to find a room to rent or a couch to sleep on, the real pain will start to settle in. You will no longer be around your kids who you have worked so hard to protect all these years. You won’t know which boyfriend Michelle has at your old house or who is taking care of your kids. You may wonder if they are happy and healthy or what the report card said but sadly you will be at Michelle’s mercy to either include you or alienate you from their lives. Get some tissues Barack, because about a month after you are forced from the White House you will realize emotional pain hurts far worse than those pesky Republicans bad mouthing your healthcare laws. You will cry, a lot. Be prepared for a long battle Mr. President, as there will be continuations in court, mediation sessions and settlement conferences all before you can even tell your side of the story. I know it probably sounds crazy all this happening to you. You probably feel blindsided by it. You probably thought you actually have rights and most likely you didn’t know all this could happen to you without due process. Perhaps your lawyer friends could head to Philadelphia and reread the Constitution to doublecheck and make sure you’re not missing something. You may want to get your pal Mr. Biden to bring you a copy of the VAWA act as well, this is what got you into this mess to begin with, Barack. Please don’t take it out on Mr. Biden, as you may need to sleep on his couch because the lawyer fees and supervised visits and support payments are astronomically high and you need to pinch pennies. Peanut butter and Ramen noodles are you near Staples of nutrition. No more personal chef, Michelle gets to keep him too.

I’m sorry Mr. Pres., I know it all seems so crazy that in a supposed free country all your rights are stripped away and nobody cares about what really happened or if maybe, just maybe, Michelle was actually abusing you for years but you were too afraid to speak up. We all know men who are victims of abuse have little to no resources, no shelters to go to, no violence against men act, the police don’t believe you and your buddies at work may ridicule you if you tell them that Michelle has been abusing you at the White House while the Secret Service was right outside your door. I am sorry you are in this situation Mr. President, hopefully when the dust settles you can have your kids every other weekend and a week during the summer. I know you did everything to protect them and now barely get to see them. You’ll most likely become a Disney dad now Barack, sorry you can’t do homework with them or wake up with them or be an active participant in their lives. Hopefully you will be one of the lucky ones and Michelle won’t alienate the kids from you, bad mouthing you to her high-class friends an telling the kids what a loser you are. Welcome to our club Barack, though its not a club anyone wants to be a part of or could have imagined even existed in their wildest dreams. My best advice to you is stand up for your rights, maybe talk to Biden about fixing his biased VAWA act. Tell the girls you love them as much as you can. Maybe someday they will know you always wanted to be in their lives but an unjust and corrupt system kept you from them.

Sincerely,

Joseph Makem

Hello little men!

How are my champs doing on this lovely sunny Monday….? I hope very well and that you two are having some sunshine also…..

Boys as you will see I have emailed the Court last week and again today to ask when they will action the email from over a month ago that the Judge issued to say I am right , she and your solicitor forgot to add the warning notice as per the Children’s act 2006 , yet as I am sitting here now the same High Court of the Judge is not issuing the updated order thus allowing me to file for the committal of your care giver as she has breached the contact order 3 times already since 5 Dec 2013 , but surprise , surprise , no response from the Court or the Judge, but yet they could not act fast enough to enforce the court undertaking that they have included for your care giver…. More discrimination ? I think so… Sure they will come with a stupid excuse again but what they seem to forget is that their actions now have invalidated the very order and undertaking , so will be interesting to see how they try and get around this one !

I had a busy morning here today , lots of emails and admin stuff to sort, the new mandates for the South African Solicitors have been done for the project I have been working on, so things are moving forward now…..

Ouma and Oupa says hello and sends all their love …. , Ouma is watering the garden on the patio today as we have not had rain for a couple of days, I must say it is a lot cooler here then what it should be this time of the year , but no complaints from me in that regard…can’t wait for winter if I am honest…..nice crisp cold mornings ! Joy !

Don’t know what your big plans are for this week , but knowing you both I am sure you have plenty of plans up your sleeves…just as long as you are safe , warm and happy as little men should be…..

O before I forget I see the Oscar P trial is going to be broadcast live here when it starts next month, I think by looking at the facts and him being such a known person it might be the trial of the decade…sure you two will read about it all one day…guess it will become part of history…..

Just want to say I miss and love you both so much …….don’t know how to put it in better words without me sounding like a bigger wimp than what I come across as when I write these updates for you both each day……

As always little men , I will see you both later tonight under our big old green tree in dream land , packing huge warm bear cuddles for you both….

Night , night little champs , happy dreams of proper court orders one day…

Love you both TTTTHhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiSSSS much and miss you both a great deal more ……

Love you little men…..

Dad xx

http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=sn03101

Begin forwarded message:

From: Phill Ferreira
Date: 17 February 2014 10:07:50 GMT+2
To: Ann Hurley , Family Lancaster County
Cc: Rebecca Butterfield , Peter – Cafcass Morey , xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Enforcement of breach of contact order Ferreira vs. Ferreira

Dear Singleton,

2nd reminder for action by your court ? More discrimination evidence once again !

Kind Regards,

Phill Ferreira

Sent from my iPad

On 13 Feb 2014, at 07:56, “Phill Ferreira” wrote:

Dear Judge Singleton,

Hope you are well ,

I write to you to give you one more example of the discrimination by your very Court,

You yourself instructed your court to update the orders of Nov and Dec as per the Children’s Act 2006 to allow me to apply for the 3 breaches of the contact order but yet to date your Court has still not issued the updated court order to allow this but yet you are happy to take in a breach of the undertaking under this same order that in fact now by law stand invalid.

Kind Regards,

Phill Ferreira

Sent from my iPad

What Judges Really Think About Fathers: Responses To Court-Commissioned Judicial Bias Surveys
Posted on 12/01/2013
(originally published in Transitions 31(4), November 2013)

Observing that a large percentage of cases are settled without a trial, a former family court judge asserted, without stating any basis in fact, that it simply means that “many men recognize that their children will be better cared for by the mother.”[1] To this judge, a father who failed to concede custody to the mother early on in the proceeding almost certainly would be considered a “problem” litigant. How many judges approach contests between men and women with a predisposition to rule against the man?

While it might be thought that a statement such as the one quoted above represents only one judge’s opinion, surveys of judicial attitudes support the conclusion that his view is shared by a vast number of judges. A study conducted in 2004 found that although the tender years doctrine had been abolished some time ago, a majority of Indiana family court judges still supported it and decided cases coming before them consistently with it.[2] A survey of judges in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee found a clear preference among judges for maternal custody in general.[3]

Another survey, this one commissioned by the Minnesota Supreme Court, found that a majority (56%) of the state’s judges, both male and female, agreed with the statement, “I believe young children belong with their mother.” Only a few of the judges indicated that they would need more information about the mother before they could answer. Fathers, one judge explained, “must prove their ability to parent while mothers are assumed to be able.”[4] Another judge commented, “I believe that God has given women a psychological makeup that is better tuned to caring for small children.”[5]

Judges’ self-reporting of their prejudices against fathers was consistent with practicing attorneys’ impressions of them. 69% of male attorneys had come to the conclusion that judges always or often assume from the outset (i.e., before being presented with any evidence) that children belong with their mothers. 40% of the female attorneys agreed with that assessment. Nearly all attorneys (94% of male attorneys and 84% of female attorneys) said that all judges exhibited prejudice against fathers at least some of the time.[6]

Similar findings have been made in court-sponsored gender bias studies conducted in other states. The Maryland study, for example, found that most attorneys perceived that it is either always or often the case that “[c]ustody awards to mothers are based on the assumption that children belong with their mothers.”[7] A follow-up study conducted in 2001 “still indicates a preference to award mothers custody.”[8] The majority of attorneys, both male and female, agreed that fathers either did not always get treated fairly in custody proceedings, or that they “often” did not. 6% of judges, 17% of female attorneys and 29% of male attorneys went so far as to say that no father ever receives fair treatment in a Maryland custody proceeding.[9] Surveys of judges in Maryland, Missouri, Texas and Washington found that a majority of judges were unable to say that they usually give fathers fair consideration in custody cases.[10] This matched the perception of members of the bar.[11]

A review of appellate court decisions led a team of psychology and law professors to conclude that the maternal preference is still the norm.[12]

The Georgia Commission on Gender Bias in the Judicial System uncovered judicial beliefs that mothers are always better parents than fathers; that children need to be with their mothers, but not necessarily with their fathers; and that a father cannot be a nurturing parent if he works outside the home. In addition, the commission uncovered a reluctance to deny custody of children to mothers out of fear that doing so will “brand” the mother as unfit or unworthy.[13] No judges expressed any comparable concern for the reputation or feelings of fathers.

Every state has standards of judicial conduct that judges are expected to meet. The Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct is typical. Canon 3 requires judges to “perform the duties of the office impartially.” Impartiality is defined as “absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintaining an open mind in considering issues that may come before the judge.” Canon 3(A)(5) makes it clear that this means sex-based preferences and discrimination are prohibited “A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice … including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon … sex….” Yet neither the gender bias study committee nor the Supreme Court, which ultimately adopted its recommendations, convened an inquiry into the widespread violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics the investigation had turned up. So far, it does not appear that the Minnesota Supreme Court even sees this as a problem. The implementation committee has recommended a number of programs to address the needs of domestic abuse victims, immigrant and refugee women, and complaints of female court staff about inappropriate comments made to them by judges, but no recommendation at all has been made to address the problem of judicial bias prejudicing the fundamental rights of fathers in family court proceedings.[14]

Policy-makers, and sometimes judges, are fond of saying that bias against fathers either never has existed or that it has been eliminated, and that mothers and fathers now stand on an equal footing in family court. Obviously that is not the case.

A system cannot be improved in the absence of a willingness to acknowledge a problem exists when confronted with proof that it does. The question now is: Are judges and judicial policy-makers really committed to eradicating bias and prejudice in the judicial branch or not? If so, when will they begin?

[1] Carl A. Weinman, The Trial Judge Awards Custody, 10 L. & Contemp. Probs. 721, 723 (1944).

[2] Julie E. Artis, Judging the Best Interests of the Child: Judges’ Accounts of the Tender Years Doctrine, 38 Law & Soc’y Rev. 769, 771 (2004)

[3] Leighton Stamps, Maternal Preference in Child Custody Decisions, 37 J. Divorce & Remarriage 1(2002).

In general, it seems that judges are unwilling to explicitly specify whether mothers or fathers are the preferred parents, with the exception of the situation when children are under the age of six, in which case they believe that the mother is the preferred parent. Although they disagreed with the specification of either parent as better than the other, … the disagreement was stronger with regard to the father. Overall, on each of the five items, the means indicated a preference toward mothers over fathers, which are consistent with the theory of maternal preference.

Top Views by Country for all days ending 2014-02-17 (Summarized)

Country Views
United Kingdom 4,017
South Africa 978
United Arab Emirates 517
Ireland 443
United States 121
Netherlands 32
India 21
Guernsey 14
Canada 13
Cyprus 12
Australia 10
New Zealand 10
Poland 7
Oman 7
Singapore 7
Germany 6
Italy 4
Greece 4
Malaysia 3
Hong Kong 3
Russian Federation 3
Turkey 3
Namibia 2
Philippines 2
Egypt 2
Mozambique 1
Senegal 1
Austria 1
Pakistan 1
France 1
Indonesia 1