I am going through a divorce as a pro se. I’ve done well for a pro-se according to the lawyers I’ve consulted, but I am well aware that doing well (as a man) in divorce court means that I am still losing,likely to lose, and likely to have my finances ruined for life.

Currently I am fighting for my right to be a parent and facing many obstacles related to the ebedded corruption and lack of transparency in family courts.

I’ve had my parenting time supervised because I took my son to the doctor and the doctor confirmed my son’s story about abuse by his mothers family… yet I was punished and my wife’s child support & the state’s ability to get more federal funding from my child support were increased…

YEP YOU READ THAT RIGHT – I TOOK MY SON TO THE DOCTOR AND LOST PARENTAL RIGHTS TO UNSUPERVISED VISITATION.

Later in my case my wife filed for a temporary restraining order alleging that a text that stated in its entirety “Yay, I got my trial adjourned” represented an act of Domestic Violence here in New Jersey.

She whited out / altered the text evidence submitted to the court (which wasn’t an official copy from the telephone company anyway – so therefore not admissable under the rules of evidence). The corrupt court granted the TRO and now I can’t see my children at all… for a text that said “Yay I got my trial adjourned”.

Separately, an issue with my ex girlfriend occurred recently resulting in A QUASI CRIMINAL CONTEMPT HEARING:

My ex girlfriend is bi-polar and unmedicated filed for a TRO (which was later dismissed) but claimed she received an email from me – despite not having ANY evidence that I sent the email she received.

I am now facing criminal contempt after being arrested via a warrant that states I sent anonymous emails. The Police admitted they had no proof I sent the emails, but arrested me anyway without interviewing me prior or after the arrest.

I am concerned that I have to have a hearing in a family court rather than a true criminal court without the use of the “reasonable doubt” standard but instead the “preponderance” standard.

It all seems like the state has made an effort to create easier convictions for itself by avoiding the constitutional requirements of a true criminal proceeding.

The case you cited above is very enlightening with regard to my legal challenge to these predicaments.

Thank you for posting.

I can be reached at sd00060@gmail.com