Institutional Family demise in Family Courts Housto Texas.

America throughout its young history has used several tools to systematically oppress minorities especially males. Family courts have for years been a medium for producing havoc on minority communities. Few countries condone or tolerate oppression of families by Government Institutions even if tools like unfair taxes, education and employment have hidden components negative to minorities. These tools have been mostly viewed as universally used and some what equal. Family courts seem to have a constitution different from that governing all other Americans.



That family courts in Houston can have the power to determine who can reside in a home weeks before a final divorce trial, removing the minority father and turning the house to a mother who virtually abandoned it years ago and has had many physical fights with children under the age of 16, is confusing. Why would the court not wait for the divorce to be final then decide under community property ownership of the house.



The court has had more than a year of hearings and motions on this case and is well aware of the facts . This reinforces my concept that the courts final concern is monetary child support. The courts target the father for child support then frame the case to achieve their objective. At the time of the trial the parent that is assigned the children and the residency determines the primary parent and thereby financial child support.



Many mothers design their lives with income from child support assisted by welfare by way of food stamps and other forms of Federal, State and local support.



There are many fathers who simply will not support children for diverse reasons, leaving the mothers with no choice outside seeking court ordered child support. I am referring to many instances where the father has been living at the house for years, supporting his children, providing their every need while the mother is missing in action. The case in mind involves a mother that has had at her residence a 10 year old 16 times and a 16 year old 4 times in a twelve month period.



Something is not right with that picture. The court awards the mother exclusive rights to the house and children. Since the 21st of June, the children have not spent a full day with the mother, partly due to her work schedule but she has had lots of time for night life and parties, all of which she is perfectly entitled to. Now she has interpreted the court order to read the father is to have the children for the month of July thereby excluding her from finical and other responsibilities associated with the children.



The pattern documented to the court is of this mother whose  life does not include the children verses a life of a  father and children living an interesting life. For instance the family love animals and plants. In their back yard are fruit trees including pears, oranges and lemons. Pets include birds, rabbits hens and Major the dog. They obtain an egg from each hen daily and so purchases no eggs.



The father replaced his lay back job for a highly technical job in order to spend more quality time  with his children. He works 8 am to 3 pm Monday to Friday.



Americans have a problem with Hitler destruction of the Jews and his division and separation of families. What is the difference when a court systematically separate fathers from their children, in order to boost their finical child support dollar numbers, dictating visiting schedules that are so complicated that one needs a computer to follow. Awarding a tax equal to 25% of the fathers gross earnings and requiring the father to maintain insurance for the children.



That is a family that has existed for years, with little State assistance. Any assistance was processed by the mother for reasons beyond the scope of this blog.



Arrogance is clearly visible at the courts and one can easily observe differences when the court is dealing with minority males whether lawyers, defendants or respondent,

Those of us familiar with televised court cases will notice the respect judges display to minority participants.


 The Supreme Court concluding a case provides reports for their decisions, whether for or descent. Concluding a hearing at a Family Court in Houston involving a minority hearing lawyer and respondent the judge was deliberate and casual. After all he was in putting in motion a minority lynching that he was very comfortable with. Not a care for the family destruction he was about to begin.  No care for the children, their home, safety, recreation and other needs. Just as long as at the conclusion of the divorce case in two week financial child support and other court impose taxes are paid to the father not for the need of the children but the greed of the mother. (who cares).


 The Judge simply said DENIED. attorney for the minority male confused started to say your honor but the judge interrupted again with DENIED. no further explanation.



The judge is not expected to defend his decision since it is based on the law. (maybe) but simple respect for the attorney would necessitate a response such as Attorney I regret you did nor meet the burden of proof. Or I think the burden of prof was meet by opposing plaintiff.


But simply DENIED is disrespectful to the Attorney and unprofessional on the part of the judge.

I am calling for a review of the family court as a means of restoring pride and confidence between the courts and Americans. The court should be a place for justice not fair, unity not division, restoring hope not despair, intelligence not indifference respect not arrogance.