Home » Court Injustice

Double Dipping Isn’t Just Maryland’s Problem – The National Pattern of Replacing Parents While Still Charging Support

In Maryland, courts permit a “de facto father” to replace the biological parent while still enforcing child support obligations, highlighting a troubling trend in family courts nationwide. This practice benefits states financially, creating a system where parental rights are diminished yet financial obligations persist, often under the guise of the child’s best interests.

Double Dipping Isn’t Just Maryland’s Problem – The National Pattern of Replacing Parents While Still Charging Support Read More

Child Support & “Double Dipping” – The Absurd Economics of Erasing a Parent

The Reichert v. Hornbeck case highlights the absurdity of Maryland’s family court system, where a biological father is forced to pay child support despite being replaced as a parent without due process. This practice not only undermines the child’s best interests but also serves the economic interests of the court and state.

Child Support & “Double Dipping” – The Absurd Economics of Erasing a Parent Read More

When They Steal Your Children: How to Still Feel Like a Parent in a System That Wants You to Disappear

The content discusses the emotional turmoil faced by parents who feel erased by family court decisions. It emphasizes that despite these challenges, they remain parents. Suggestions include writing letters to their children, preserving memories, speaking their names, and finding support. The piece encourages resilience, self-improvement, and turning grief into positive actions.

When They Steal Your Children: How to Still Feel Like a Parent in a System That Wants You to Disappear Read More

Twelve Motions Denied: The Systematic Erosion of Rights in Sewell’s Case

The Sewell v. Sewell case illustrates a troubling pattern within the South Carolina Family Court, where twelve motions filed by William Sewell seeking justice were uniformly denied without adequate explanation. This systemic denial of due process highlights a court environment prioritizing power over fairness, leaving vulnerable parties without legal recourse or representation.

Twelve Motions Denied: The Systematic Erosion of Rights in Sewell’s Case Read More

The Untouchable Robe: How Judge Susan Capeci’s Decisions Have Harmed Families, Sparked Outrage, and Escaped Accountability

Judge Susan M. Capeci has faced repeated criticism for her purported bias in court decisions, especially in cases involving domestic violence and child custody. Her rulings have led to allegations of judicial misconduct, wrongful removal of children, and denial of due process for litigants, raising significant concerns about her impact on families and justice.

The Untouchable Robe: How Judge Susan Capeci’s Decisions Have Harmed Families, Sparked Outrage, and Escaped Accountability Read More

Innocent Until Family Court: How Due Process Dies Behind Closed Doors

Family court in the U.S. operates differently from criminal courts, lacking essential rights like the presumption of innocence and a jury. False allegations are common, leading to unjust outcomes. The burden of proof lies with the accused, and mental health issues are weaponized against parents. Reforms are urgently needed to ensure fairness and due process.

Innocent Until Family Court: How Due Process Dies Behind Closed Doors Read More