« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Rebuttal to False Statements here as to KS Courts Bias toward Mothers  (Read 14781 times)

KTM

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 215
Rebuttal to False Statements here as to KS Courts Bias toward Mothers
« on: November 01, 2012, 06:41:03 PM »
I have seen claims here repeatedly that Kansas Courts are biased toward Mothers.

In Fact Kansas Law states otherwise.

Refer to KSA (Kansas Statutes)
Chapter 60
Article 16
(a) Minor Children
(2) Child Custody & Residency
 (C)   Neither parent shall be considered to have a vested interest in the custody or residency of any child as against the other parent, regardless of the age of the child, and there shall be no presumption that it is in the best interests of any infant or young child to give custody or residency to the mother.
Logged

Guru

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 366
Re: Rebuttal to False Statements here as to KS Courts Bias toward Mothers
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2012, 09:05:16 PM »
KTM,

I agree that the law states there should be no bias, but it is always left up to a judge.  Unfortunately there are still plenty of judges who believe Dad's sole purpose in life is to provide financial support for his family and put food on the table.  And of course take care of the lawn.  Seeing as the vast majority of judges are men, I'm not sure if they were simply brought up like this or if there is still an underlying notion that women are better suited to look after children.  Hard to tell, but it's not hard to see that many judges do prefer to leave kids with Mom.  This just what I've observed anyway.

I will add one thing that I'm not sure you were aware of.  Many KS judges interpret the word "shall" in KS law to mean "may."  I kid you not, I had a judge straight up tell me on the record in the court room that the word "shall" means "may" and therefore he would not enforce it.  If you review the changes made in the laws in July of 2010 one of the extensive changes made was to remove the word "shall" in some KS statutes and replace with "must" or "will."  This was done throughout chapter 60 and a few others I believe, which are discussed in briefs written by a few universities including Washburn University school of law.  The house bill that changed this was HB2656.  However, legislators left the word "shall" in 60-16.  So this means that a judge reads this statute as the court "may."  It's hard to get behind something that says "may."

Here's the brief by Washburn school of law on the topic: http://www.dc18.org/info/KBA_Journal_Civil_Code_and_Time_Computation.pdf


« Last Edit: November 08, 2012, 11:34:10 PM by Guru »
Logged

KTM

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 215
Re: Rebuttal to False Statements here as to KS Courts Bias toward Mothers
« Reply #2 on: November 09, 2012, 11:29:24 AM »
It does not appear that a presumption of a Courts bias can be made either way unless one specifically reviews an individual Judge's decision making record and patterns appear biased.

Without factual data demonstrating a bias by a single Judge, Courthouse or entire group specifically due to the singe factor of sexual designation it is not appropriate to make claims of bias.

Since family law matters are complex I believe it would be difficult to narrow the reasoning behind decisions made down to a single factor.
Logged

KTM

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 215
Re:Legal Terms Definition of "Shall"
« Reply #3 on: November 09, 2012, 11:35:11 AM »
Logged

Guru

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 366
Re: Rebuttal to False Statements here as to KS Courts Bias toward Mothers
« Reply #4 on: November 09, 2012, 03:15:00 PM »
My case and point - there are multiple definitions of the word shall.  The legal community can offer up whatever definition suits their particular need at the moment, so just because a statute says there "shall" be no bias, there still "may" be.  So its all based on how a judge interprets the law, and therefore the judge can choose to interpret the law differently to suit a certain need.  Thereby allowing a judge to introduce bias in a case every time.
Logged

KTM

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 215
Re: Rebuttal to False Statements here as to KS Courts Bias toward Mothers
« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2012, 04:10:12 PM »
Guru.

The Law is not Black & White in any case even if you substitute one word for another.
You missed TWO (2) points.

1. The Legal interpretation of the word "shall" as "may" is limited to "When a negative word such as not or no precedes shall the word shall often means may. For example, no person shall enter the building without first signing the roster. "

Other times the Legal interpretation of "shall" is "An imperative command; has a duty to or is required to." OR "Will" as interpreted by Legal Precedent in Case law.

2. I do not believe there is any way to factually prove bias as determined by a single factor such as sexual identification due to the complexity of family law cases.

The changing of a word shall make you feel better without actually changing anything since a Court ruling can only be overturned on appeal and a factual case would need to be presented that a Judge made a biased decision. That is a loosing battle in the Majority of cases anyway as the appeals Courts begins with the presumption that the Judge made a correct ruling in the first place.

Just because you think and say it is true. Does not make it true. As such, you are entitled to hold on to your opinion.
Logged

Guru

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 366
Re: Rebuttal to False Statements here as to KS Courts Bias toward Mothers
« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2012, 05:53:16 PM »
I mostly agree on point 2.  Although a case can be appealed if a judge has not ruled pursuant to KS statute as well as an abuse of discretion or display of bias.

On point 1, the word "neither" is a negative word.  Since the legal definition you just cited states "such as," this can be expanded to include other negative words such as"neither."  Regardless, the judge who stated this on record did not qualify his statement at all.  He said the word "shall" means "may."

Therefore, since judges rule us all, I guess KSA 60-16 can be interpreted as:

Chapter 60
Article 16
(a) Minor Children
(2) Child Custody & Residency
 (C)   Neither parent MAY be considered to have a vested interest in the custody or residency of any child as against the other parent, regardless of the age of the child, and there MAY be no presumption that it is in the best interests of any infant or young child to give custody or residency to the mother.

Now, I'm not a judge and I don't interpret law for a living, BUT, I think it would be wise for someone to "assume" before walking into the court room that a KS judge "could" interpret this statute as stated above.  As you can see, the outcome can be entirely different.

I think you point is valid, but just like any argument (as you know), there are two sides to every coin.  Smart people can twist just about any word or situation.
Logged

KTM

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 215
Re: Rebuttal to False Statements here as to KS Courts Bias toward Mothers
« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2012, 06:01:53 PM »
Guru, It sounds like we agree.
Logged

hicksvilleshick

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Rebuttal to False Statements here as to KS Courts Bias toward Mothers
« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2013, 08:58:24 AM »
I have first hand seen my father, myself, and my brother go thru this. Yes, it's true and widely known, unless the mother is a documented crackhead (I've even seen an instance that didn't matter) or abandons the child altogether, the mother has the upper hand.

I'm not sure how many times you have had to deal with the family courts here. I watched my dad have to pay child support to my mother for me while he had residential custody of me. I've been estranged from my children and financially raped for catching another man in my house with my wife and children, I've watched my brother catch his wife with another man and in the end of it all he's punished by only getting his son 1 day a week.

KTM your also assuming the judges follow the law, I've seen them repeatedly ignore it.
Logged

mykidzmom

  • Silver Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
Re: Rebuttal to False Statements here as to KS Courts Bias toward Mothers
« Reply #9 on: July 20, 2013, 08:57:55 AM »
I can't even believe this ^^^exchange ever took place. Someone trying to say judges aren't biased using a statute as if they follow it just because it's written? I'm a WOMAN and I know that judges are biased in favor of us! And there are some crazy women raising their children out there, using the court system to keep the father away. Someone just crawled out from under a rock...
Logged

Guru

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 366
Re: Rebuttal to False Statements here as to KS Courts Bias toward Mothers
« Reply #10 on: July 20, 2013, 08:18:03 PM »
Thank you mykidzmom for your input on that.  Nice to have another perspective.
Logged

Dad

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35
Re: Rebuttal to False Statements here as to KS Courts Bias toward Mothers
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2013, 03:05:44 PM »
From my experience biases are Judge and county dependent.  I have seen more liberal counties like Johnson, be almost reversely discriminatory against women and smaller, less progressive ones have a clear bias towards the dads.  I wish there were a perfect answer, but there is not.  My wife and her co-parent have found great success with a well respected therapist.  They are at the point now where they do not use their case manager, and rarely have disagreements.  I believe that if shared parenting is agreed, both mothers and fathers should be held to the same standard.  And I believe that if shared parenting is not agreed then perhaps a therapist or a mediator can sort out a division of responsibilities, time, etc.  One very easy piece of getting along is letting go of control and staying out of each others parenting. 
Logged

Guru

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 366
Re: Rebuttal to False Statements here as to KS Courts Bias toward Mothers
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2013, 09:18:44 PM »
Dad, that last sentence is the holy grail to a peaceful co parenting relationship.  I think most of the time one parent wanting complete control or feeling they are entitled to full control is what causes the most problems.  Unfortunately parents are usually bitter and vindictive after a divorce.  Throwing large amounts of money for legal fees and child support around just worsens the problem.  Greed then sets in and a feeling of revenge... It's a vicious cycle.
Logged

KTM

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 215
Re: Rebuttal to False Statements here as to KS Courts Bias toward Mothers
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2013, 06:38:21 PM »
Thank you "Dad" for your comments. My experience is limited to Johnson County and the apparent reverse pendulum push creating a bias toward fathers.
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »