All language subtitles for Divorce.Corp.2014.720p.WEBRip.x264.AAC-[YTS.MX]ENG

50% of US marriages end in a divorce.

Divorce is more than
a 50 billion dollar a year industry.

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.
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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

This is our
leopard gecko, Star.

I got custody of him.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bend over the bed.

Stop! Stop!

Bend over
the fucking bed, dammit!

Lay down, I'll
smack your fucking face.

You want to put some
more computer games on?

You want some more?

Fucking computer.

I told you I didn't want
one in the goddamn house.

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.