the new version of the child sex-abuse accusations against- surprise- primarily fathers.
Under the DVPA, it is very easy for a woman to allege domestic violence and get a restraining order (aka “protection order”). New Jersey issues 30,000 restraining orders annually, and men are targeted in 4/5ths of them. The standard is “preponderance of the evidence” (often conceptualized as 51%-49%), and judges almost always side with the accusing plaintiff.
Under the DVPA, the accuser need not even claim actual abuse. Alleged verbal threats of violence are sufficient, even though it’s almost impossible for the accused to provide substantive contradictory evidence.
The restraining order boots the man out of his own home and generally prohibits him from contacting his own children. Men are cut off from their possessions and property, and some end up in homeless shelters. Yet most have never even had a chance to defend themselves in court. In recognition of the gravity of these orders, the Hudson County judge, Francis B. Schultz, found the current standard of proof unconstitutional, however, and required the stricter "clear and convincing evidence" standard in the case before him. His ruling was not binding on other judges, but will likely be appealed, which could lead to a decision with a broader impact.
“Protective orders are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody…[they are] almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there is relatively meager evidence and usually without notice to the restrained person....it is troubling that they appear to be sought more and more frequently for retaliation and litigation purposes.”
An article in the November, 2007 issue of the Illinois Bar Journal explains:
"If a parent is willing to abuse the system, it is unlikely the trial court could discover (his or her) improper motives in an Order of Protection hearing."
These orders have become so commonplace that the Illinois Bar Journal calls them "part of the gamesmanship of divorce.”
Jane Hanson, executive director of Partners for Women and Justice in Montclair, argues that Superior Court Judge Francis B. Schultz is wrong in ruling that the DVPA violates parents’ “fundamental” right to “be with or maintain their relationship with their children.” Yet when a restraining order is issued, fathers can be (and sometimes are) arrested for calling their own children on the phone or going to their Little League games.
Moreover, by removing the father from the home, a custody precedent is set with mom as primary caregiver and dad as occasional visitor—a precedent which harms fathers’ ability to gain joint custody of their children in divorce proceedings.
I remember when the sex-abuse mess started. It was discovered that if a woman accused her ex, or ex-to-be, of abusing the kids, he was screwed: he'd be thrown out of the house, he'd be presumed guilty which led to everything from losing his job to being shunned by everyone("Nobody would accuse him of that if there wasn't something to it!) and so on. A lot of dirtbag prosecutors discovered that it was fairly easy to get small kids to say "Daddy touched me in a bad place", which meant an easy conviction and screw whether it was true or not. And even when the father was able to prove it was a lie, his life was still screwed. And legal action was almost never taken against the female(that would be 'insensitive', and besides, it'll make women mad if we do and they'll vote against us).
Well, with the Lauterberg Amendment, if a PO is made permanent, you lose your 2nd Amendment rights on top of everything else. It's interesting that this judge calling for 'clear and convincing evidence' causes this kind of hyperventilating from the Usual Suspects.